The Triangulation Shuffle

Sixteen years of “Being All Things” seem enough

The primary season can be deceiving. The efforts of both left and right to play to their respective bases creates am illusion of ideological focus. Whatever you think of ‘em, you have to give MoveOn.org credit for being loud, noisy and influential. Nobody on the left dare stray too far away from their designated ideological pen just yet. And all the leading Republican candidates seem to be vying for the label of “most conservative.” But once we swing past the conventions it will all change. It always does. Then the candidates will attempt to veer towards the middle. It has always been thus.

What has been different in the most recent political generation is the formalization of this strategy of bobbing and weaving, of feinting to the right when needed, and then back to the left when that was called for. This was the political genius of President Bill Clinton, along with his advisors – most notably Dick Morris. Above all things Bill Clinton could “talk the talk.” He could be as black as his black audience, as blue collar as his union audience, as radical as his left wing audience. But the strategy of triangulation took this concept to a new level after the Republicans conquered the House in 1994. When combined with that other Clinton political hallmark – the perpetual campaign – this strategy of triangulation sought to define the acceptable leftmost and rightmost political boundaries, and position Clinton squarely between the two. But it was all play-acting. His “Sister Souljah” Moment was facile opportunism. And his promise to “end welfare as we know it” was empty rhetoric until the conservative Congress called his bluff.

But it worked. Combined with his unique political talents it got him elected and reelected. The impact it had on his “popularity” probably saved him from impeachment. In 2000 the open question was: was this a result of Clinton’s unique skill, or was this the model for the new millennium?

One would never know it from the reaction of the left, but the success of President Bush (W) and the political “genius” of Karl Rove have proven to also be based on triangulation. In fact, one could argue that “compassionate conservatism” is the ultimate in cynical triangulation: “Let’s find a slogan that will make the soccer moms feel warm and fuzzy inside and use that”. Come on, “No Child Left Behind” is almost a parody of what a conservative would say to appeal to a liberal. (In my salad days, my former boss R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. marketed bumper stickers reading “Nuke the Whales”. It didn’t seem to have as salutary an electoral effect. Odd.)

If one takes the War on Islamist Terror out of the mix, much of the Bush (W) agenda has been a seeming effort to appeal to “the middle” by softening the hard edges of ideological conservatism. This has set up some interesting conflicts – on one hand we will cut taxes significantly, while on the other we will institute an entirely new federal entitlement for Viagra for old folks.

So is President Bush simply a mirror image reincarnation of President Clinton? I think not. The one thing that has kept me in his camp (again, aside from his steadfastness in the War on Islamist Terror) has been the fact that he is clearly a man who acts on core belief, not political calculation. Dick Morris may have been able to persuade President Clinton to take a poll before deciding whether to bomb people, but Karl Rove – as good as he demonstrably is – could never convince President Bush to do anything that President Bush did not believe in at a very deep level.

So, does that make a difference? Less than I would hope. Aside from the moral satisfaction that comes from backing an honest horse, the results have shown that being neither here nor there provide indifferent results.

Coming back to where I started, is this the model for the future? How does the current suite of candidates look viewed through the prism of triangulation? Barack! appears to have the treacly mediocrity required to play at triangulation. But my guess is that neither his false sincerity nor his frat boy sexiness will be deep enough to pull it off. Hillary! Is proving singularly inept at playing her husband’s game. Pretty Boy Edwards doesn’t even pretend at playing triangulation. The jury is still out on Dennis Kucinich.

On the Republican side, Mitt might be tempted to play the game. But I don’t think a Mormon can pull it off. Rudy doesn’t need to. Being a New Yorker serves the same purpose. I fear that Fred Thompson could try to blend a Reaganesque folksiness with a softening triangulation. If he does, it will prove the end of his candidacy.

No, I believe that America has moved, at least temporarily, beyond the triangulation indulgence. Because that what it is. Serious times demand serious leaders, and triangulation doesn’t work in that mode. President Clinton could tinker with politics because we were on a holiday from history. President Bush was elected in the same milieu. He was – pardon the expression - rescued by 9/11. I deeply believe that we have moved beyond triangulation. I hope I am right. If not, we are ill-equipped to deal with the world as we have inherited it.

Archives of "The View from the Ground"

Send an e mail to Patrick J. Shanahan

Visit his website at: