QandO

January 23, 2004

The Politics of Pragmatism
Posted by McQ

OK I’ll admit it, I’m a cynic. I’ve come to believe over the years that while all politicians spout ideological rhetoric, they’re all, deep down, the ultimate pragmatists. That’s because ideology may help get you elected but it won’t keep you in office. Pragmatism will. Now that’s not particularly profound (in fact some would say it’s a blinding flash of the obvious), but it does explain a lot of what’s gone on with the Bush administration’s domestic policy in the past couple of years and why this proposal is now on the table:

“President Bush will propose an increase of less than 1 percent for federal programs not related to defense or homeland security, effectively freezing discretionary spending in the next budget, after coming under fire from conservatives to control runaway spending.”

Altogether now, this is being done for what reason? To appeal to his “ideological base”, i.e. the conservatives. Why? Because they’re growing more and more restless. Again, not a particularly profound observation, but stay with me here.

The Prez has done what on domestic issues? Well he’s taken parts of the liberal agenda and essentially used it against them. He’s neutralized it. And the reason he’s done that? To innoculate himself against the Dems during the election season.

Pure pragmatism.

Sure they can knock No Child Left Behind, but who’s going to believe them if they say he’s done nothing for education, not to mention the fact that whoever’s running against him will have most likely voted FOR it? And of course the same thing can be said for the Medicare prescription drug benefit and other provisions passed during his first 4 years. So my guess is, when the great mass of undecided actually get around to making a decision, this area may be a tough sell for the Dems.

The war on Iraq and more broadly, the war on terror? Done - barring some sort of disaster there. I don’t care who the Dems run (well, except Lieberman, the only “Tony Blair Democrat” among them, and he doesn’t have a chance in hell), these are Bush’s issues. He essentially owns them. The Dems come off whiny about this, and their continued appeals to the UN aren’t that appealing to most voters.

The economy is better, and just guessing here, by the time we get serious about really electing the president, jobs will be rebounding in a big way. If so the “Two Americas” campaign of the Dems (also known as the usual “class warfare” campaign) is going to sound fairly hollow.

So, what time is it then for the White House? Its “shore up the base” time. Right on schedule. Please refer to the conservative “red meat” thrown out during the State of the Union Address as the opening shot in this endeavor.

The big swing to the center-right has begun.

And the timing is such that the administration beats the Dems there by a mile (heck the Dems are still fighting about a direction to take at the moment) and shows up just when those undecideds are starting to pay attention. Look for more “conservative” proposals to come out of the White House in future months ... but not too many ... just enough to assuage the base and keep it mostly happy (and quiet) and have those in center who’re undecided take notice.

Pure politics, pure pragmatism and in my estimation, a winner ... politically speaking.

But here’s the question: While it’s a political winner, is it a winner for the country?

Does its end product represent the type of government we want in this country? Bigger, more expensive, more intrusive regardless of the party in power?

That’s the result. That’s precisely what this formula brings whether it’s Bush, Clinton or whomever using it.

Solution? I haven’t the foggiest idea if there is a workable solution given the realities of politics today, but it seems that as long as this sort of pragmatic formula wins, it’ll continue to be used. I, for one (being a government minimalist and fiscal conservative), am not at all happy about it.

TrackBack