Like when George W. declared that the US shouldn't be the world's policeman?
And that we should leaven conservatism with compassion? And drive hydrogen cars made of switchgrass?
George W. did not say "leaven".
Apropos of nothing much, I remember in a mock presidential election in high school government class, the "Republican" candidate endorsed the right to choose. I argued to the teacher that this should decimate his standing, but he refused.
9/11 changed everything, JM.
Which is a joke, but also true in this case. And this would be a complicated case anyway, because I don't think isolationism genuinely has a die-hard constituency. It might be that there are actually only a few issues, like abortion, where the persona can be counted reliable, and everything else still requires an examination of "real" beliefs.
Doesn't have a large die-hard constituency...
I don't think isolationism genuinely has a die-hard constituency
Just me and Pat Buchanan.
Right. Hillary Clinton will be a home/work balance social-values-important-to-women candidate and president only to the extent she runs on and becomes identified with those issues. If she deemphasizes them in favor of foreign policy competence and toughness, than she's no more likely to deliver on them than anybody else.
Didn't Reagan also make nice with the anti-abortion faction and not deliver them anything substantive?
Romney should make a list of what he enjoys doing.
1. Being pro-choice.
2. Being pro-life.
3. ... etc.
11: If she actually did run on those "home/work balance social-values-important-to-women" issues, I might actually vote for her. I doubt she will so I likely won't.
Why don't we just elect the focus group and ignore the candidates, who are merely talking heads?
re: 15
Randomly selecting $foo number of people, jury-style, and having them represent the country is no worse than what we have at the moment.
I find myself in the curious position of agreeing with the post without being clear about the point of the post.
the point of the post
-gg-d is laying the groundwork for his endorsement of Romney.
16 Kinda reminds me of Solon's Athenian-style democracy-by-lottery. There was always the Ostrakon, a mechanism for ostracism to exhile demogogues. Can you think of a candidate for contemporary ostracism?
Well, see, this is the rub. I actually think that, on the secondary/no big constituency issues, a politician's personal views do matter more. Someone over at TAPPED was able to point to a half-dozen "home/work balance social-values-important-to-women" issues where HRC has taken a lead in the Senate - not because she's "made it an issue" from a campaigning standpoint, but because she gets it. Al Gore as VP pushed environmental issues beyond what Clinton/Gore ran on, because of his interest.
It's not going to be splashy, but it will make a difference; the right people will be appointed, roadblocks will be breached, etc.
19 Only demagogues who had recently been inhiled.
I think Yglesias' point seems convincing only because it doesn't acknowledge that there are different courses of action connected to being a true believer vs. staying in a persona to satisfy political needs. If I were an anti-abortion activist, for example, I would be extra-suspicious of Romney given that there's been so much history of pandering from Republicans whose actions don't live up to the rhetoric. A role-player will be more likely to do only the superficial, headline-grabbing stuff, instead of doing the harder work of seriously advancing the cause.
"All lawyers represent banks" "I could have stayed home and baked cookies"
I think how much "getting it" is to be expected is an open one.
It's not going to be splashy, but it will make a difference; the right people will be appointed, roadblocks will be breached, etc.
Not clear to me what "the right people" means.
23: "Getting it" with respect to issues important to some working women, maybe? Sure, her life experience doesn't duplicate that of every individual other woman, but no one's is going to.
25: I know, and I keep trying to overcome the revulsion, remembering how different things will look when it's down to one-on-one in the general; sometimes it's hard.
Matt's right. Trying to divine what's in a politician's heart is pointless. Whether Romney or Guiliani are personally pro choice or pro life, it doesn't matter; they'll appoint exactly the same people to the bench and to the executive branch as would Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee. They might be worse, in fact; they both have something to prove w/r/t the Republican base.
Hillary is the same. There's no reason in the world to believe she's secretly (a) not hawkish or (b) not incredibly pro-business. She's going to take the same stands she's taken in the Senate and on the campaign trail.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, we should believe politicians are who they say they are. If they get elected, they're going to dance with the one that brung them. Everything George Bush said about his actual policy prescriptions in 2000 indicated that he was a far-right conservative. Lots of liberals convinced themselves that the word "compassionate" meant something policy-related, and figured that deep down, Bush was a moderate. But he was actually fairly straightforward about how he intended to do things.
Who really gives a shit what politicians believe deep down inside? Their words and actions are the only reliable predictor of their future behavior.
. If they get elected, they're going to dance with the one that brung them.
This I believe entirely, and it's why I find HRC so distasteful. But I don't think the above means that you should believe politician are who they say they are.
But I don't think the above means that you should believe politician are who they say they are.
Perhaps not, but voting for someone because you think they might not mean what they're saying is pure Crazy Town. That's really the point I wanted to make. Voting against someone for the same reason makes more sense.
29: Look, if I ask the other guy if you're lying, what will he say?
But I don't think the above means that you should believe politician are who they say they are.
No, it does, it just means that you have to be a little careful about what "who they say they are" means. Campaign slogans aren't as important as, say, a legislative record, or a list of campaign contributors, etc.
Wrong Kerrey Ran in 04?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010107
Wrong Kerrey Ran in 04?
God no, please not Bob Kerrey.
24: "right people" are the lower-level appointees who actually know what they're doing. Basically, the opposite of what Bush has done, appointing lobbyists to consumer protection, etc.
Kerrey: self-righteous, pseudo-centrist, Social Security-destroying tool.
"... There are certain positions a president of either party can't back away from, on pain of losing all political support. ..."
I am unconvinced, Nixon to China etc. What are these positions that can't be backed away from? I don't believe they exist.
What are these positions that can't be backed away from?
Democrats: Social Security
Republicans: Abortion
I'm sure others can come up with more.
24: "right people" are the lower-level appointees who actually know what they're doing. Basically, the opposite of what Bush has done, appointing lobbyists to consumer protection, etc.
They're also people who have an ideological commitment to good, fair governance and a belief that they are paid to serve the whole public. Real people waver and compromise, but you want your agency staff to start from there, not from blatant and explicit party loyalty.
38
"Democrats: Social Security
Republicans: Abortion"
So if a Democrat proposed modest cuts in social security (such as tightening up on criteria for disability) he would lose all support? Or if a Republican appointed a judge like Posner who is not a sure vote to overturn Roe V. Wade he would lose all support? For that matter Giuliani still seems to have some support. I am unconvinced.
Your examples are tinkering around the edges, JBS, not abandoning a position.
Giuliani still seems to have some support
Giuliani's campaign is doomed. Just watch.
Especially when he has to cope with McCain's unstoppable ferret-fu.
At this point, Thompson is the one to watch. Hell, we may end up with Gore vs. Gingrich.
41
"back away from" doesn't mean abandon completely. And Supreme Court nominations are not exactly unimportant.
I just don't believe in the Fred Thompson buzz. He's done a decent job stoking the base's interest in him, but if he's going to run for it, he's going to have to join in the rough back-and-forth, and he won't look so much like the avuncular conservative savior any more.
They're also people who have an ideological commitment to good, fair governance and a belief that they are paid to serve the whole public.
I don't think the separation between "ideology" and "competence" is quite as clean as people seem to be suggesting. Especially in "soft" fields of knowledge, ideology is going to be baked into the cake of competence. So "competence" as a label doesn't tell me much; there are accounts of the Iraq mess in which everyone is actually relatively competent, but those accounts begin with ideological premises with which I don't agree.
29 is right, but other than that, Ogged is on crack. Divining what someone "really" believes is dumb, but so is believing what they say. What you want is a record that you can look at.
Good thing I never said we should believe what they say.
You said we should trust that what they say will affect what they do, which amounts to the same thing in practice, nitpicker.
I didn't say anything about what they say, illiterate.
Somehow it feels like the rule of thumb should be: "If they say they're going to be all for something you hate, don't discount it. If they say they're going to be all for something you like, don't count your chickens."
No, you used synonyms like "positions" and "defend." I suppose they could use hand signals to communicate and defend their positions, though, to be fair.
Defense of positions refers to what they'll do after they're in office. Just admit you misread already.
I have no idea how you expect a politician to define his or her positions without speaking. But because I know how much winning means to you, I shall concede that no, you didn't actually *say* the word "said" yourself.
Feel better there, hun?
As often as you jump in to defend Ogged, Tim, I'm beginning to think that your mutual love of basketball really has led to something.
Building on 51, it is also the case that if they've built a record of doing shit you hate ("triangulating," voting in favor of torture bills, concentrating on what you think are trivialities while ignoring the real issue, eating live babies, selling their hit singles Halliburton), don't expect them to change; if they've built a record of doing things you like, I suppose you are allowed to be cautiously hopeful.
I can't tell if you're fucking with everyone, or really just reading it too fast.