|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reflections of Ken Towery
The Role of Hate in Politics By R.K Towery Back when Bill Clinton was President there were many questions, usually by liberal columnists, revolving around one simple question: why do Republicans hate Bill Clinton so much? The Clinton apologists, people like James Carville and Sidney Blumenthal, took the position that Clinton is such a good, decent, guy, how could anybody not like him. Now the situation is reversed, in some quarters, with the question being asked: why do Democrats hate George Bush so much? Bush's political defenders profess bewilderment over the obvious fact that anyone would, or could, bad-mouth Bush, he being such a decent guy. We submit that the answer is the same in both cases. Republicans hated Bill Clinton more than usual in the world of politics simply because Clinton had the capacity to confound his political enemies, just as George Bush has the capacity to confound his political enemies. That capacity, the capacity to confound one's enemies, requires a set of flexible principles, principles that can be changed with the circumstances. Clinton had it. Bush has it. Clinton could, and did, adopt certain positions favored by conservatives, even as he pushed a generally liberal agenda. Bush has the capacity to push certain liberal issues (the field of more generous federal funding for education comes to mind) even as he tries to put a more conservative stamp on the federal government through appointments to the Judiciary. There are many areas where Bush is able to confound his political enemies. The one area that seems to render his opponents most speechless is his pursuit of political groups heretofore counted safely in the Democratic camp. Bush has put a black face on his foreign policy team, in Colin Powell at State and Condi Rice at the National Security Council, thereby causing consternation among white liberal Democrats who worry that black voters may be impressed, and perhaps take a second look at conservative candidates. But those same liberal Democrats can not mount a political offensive against Bush on those grounds, lest they reveal their own ends, intentions, and motivations, and lest they indicate publicly that they believe the black vote can be influenced by such tactics. That would be disrespectable, perhaps even insulting, to the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. An even more obvious maneuver is Bush's efforts to move the wealthy and influential Jewish vote from its traditional place in the Democratic fold into Republican voting booths. This particular maneuver requires skill and finesse. For instance, Mr. Bush will occasionally indicate his unhappiness with certain actions by the Israeli government, but all it takes to put things in their proper place is for the Israeli leader (whoever he might be) to state his own position, which quickly becomes Mr. Bush's position. Numerous articles in the Israeli press attest to the status felt by the Israeli government concerning that country's dealings with the United States. In short, they are not worried. They have friends and supporters in the leadership of both Congressional parties in Washington, and their only real worry is who American voters put in the Presidency every four years. Who that president is, has a lot to do with the flow of billions of dollars in various interest-free stipends to Israel. It also has much to do with the direction of America's foreign policy. America's friends, and America's enemies, in the modern age, are determined in large measure by (1) who sits in America's Presidency, and (2) how various countries are viewed by Israel. The Israelis watch American elections as closely as Americans do. Accordingly, liberal Democratic politicians can hardly oppose Mr. Bush's pro-Israeli stance openly, lest they incur the wrath of the Israeli government, thereby causing word to pass from Tel Aviv to Washington, and hasten the very process they fear most, the movement of American Jews from Democratic to Republican ranks. Most American politicians are well aware of domestic implications in their foreign policy votes. Occasionally, they may forget that lesson, or they may, momentarily, ignore it. But, no long memory is needed to recall the situation revolving around former Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas, who adopted a somewhat independent, anti-Israeli, streak while serving as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, and who got beat because of it, or the former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, who was also once Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Helms barely escaped one election with his political life intact, and then listened to some good advice. He hastened off to the Wailing Wall in Israel, had his picture taken wearing one of those skull caps (the picture was widely distributed), and survived the next election with flying colors. In the process, of course, he learned what is important to an American Jewish voter who listens to the Israeli government before voting, or making campaign donations. No one who really knows Mr. Bush believes him to be politically dumb. No doubt he observed the Helms thing, and the Fulbright thing, just as he was aware of reaction in certain quarters in America to his father's foot dragging when Israel demanded a $10 Billion interest-free payoff for staying out of the Gulf War. America's media pundits, largely reflecting Israeli interests, had a field day in their criticism of the elder Bush, always on other grounds, of course. Still, the vote was instructive. Bush lost, and Israel gained a supporter in Bill Clinton. Many American Jewish voters seem more comfortable in liberal than conservative circles, but not all fall in that category, by any means. Some, in our own experience, are indeed conservative in both social and fiscal matters, while some simply vote for any candidate, or any position, they think will redound to the benefit of Israel, just as many "Hispanic" voters, but not all, tend to support any position they think will benefit the countries of their origin, no matter its effect upon America. Over the years, the Democratic proclivity to favor foreign aid on social grounds, a large percentage of which goes to Israel, and the Republican proclivity to curtail foreign aid on fiscal grounds, has led many Jewish voters to favor the Democrats. The Hispanic "equation" also figures in the question of why the Democrats in Washington so hate Bush. Democratic strategists fear, for various reasons, the flight of Hispanic voters from traditional roots in the Democratic camp to the Republican camp. Like the possible movement of Jewish voters to Republican voting, and the threat of possible neutrality among black voters, the threat of defection among Hispanic voters is enough to give Democratic strategists night mares. We doubt seriously that those movements will occur, but nevertheless, they are possible. And that possibility, plus the highly visible efforts by Mr. Bush to make them come about, are enough to generate the feelings held by Mr. Bush's opponents. It is for these reasons, in our opinion, that Bush so closely parallels Mr. Clinton in his ability to generate hostility in opposition circles. Like Clinton, Bush is able to siphon money from the general population. Money is important in politics, but only insofar as it can be responsible for influencing voters, for it is numbers that count. Clinton had the ability to use money effectively in political endeavors, whether it was the taxpayers own money, or money he had solicited from campaign donors. Bush has that same ability, in our opinion. In fact, he even exceeds Clinton in the process. A new day has dawned in politics. We are not saying we like it, but nevertheless, it is upon us, and about all we can do is get used to it.
|
|
 |
|
