This morning's Washington Post has an article about an upcoming meeting -- organized by NY City Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- of "a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join [Bloomberg] in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington." The list of attendees is impressive, people like Sam Nunn, Gary Hart, John Danforth, Christine Todd Whitman, and William Cohen. But the name that really jumped out at me from the attendees list was Virginia's own former U.S. Senator (and Governor) Chuck Robb.
What's Chuck Robb doing at this meeting, which threatens that if "the two parties do not pledge to 'go beyond tokenism' in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president?" And what is "national consensus" anyway? Would we really WANT a consensus, for instance, between foreign policy "neocons" and those (like me) who believe in spreading values of democracy and freedom using "soft power" and alliances? What would such a consensus look like? Slightly less militaristic than the neocons, maybe a bit more "soft power?" Same thing with global climate change, would we really want a "consensus" between anti-environment extremists like James Inhofe and with...well, pretty much the entire scientific community which says we need to take drastic action in the next few years? Wouldn't that just lead to a watered down approach that would accomplish nothing? Hint: that was a rhetorical question.
Anyway, back to Chuck Robb and his presence at the meeting. Perhaps this might explain it?
Politically, Robb was a moderate, but known as a conservative Democrat. As governor, he balanced the state budget without raising taxes, and dedicated an additional $1 billion for education. He appointed a record number of women and minorities to state positions, including the first African American to the state Supreme Court. He was the first Virginia governor in 25 years to use the death penalty. Robb was instrumental in creating the Super Tuesday primary that brought political power to the Southern states. He was also a co-founder in creating the Democratic Leadership Council...
Also, "Robb ranked annually as one of the most ideologically centrist senators, and he often acted as a bridge between Democratic and Republican members." In other words, Robb fits in very well with people like Sam Nunn, Christine Todd Whitman, William Cohen, and Michael Bloomberg.
The question is, will this "Unity 08" movement go anywhere? My guess is that it all depends on Mayor Bloomberg and his gazillion dollars of personal wealth. I mean, if Bloomberg's willing to spend $1 billion of his own money to run for president, and if Americans aren't thrilled with the Democratic and Republican parties, who knows what could happen in 2008? But I'm still left with the nagging question: what would a real "consensus" between right and left in this country look like? Would it be like the Bill Clinton/Tony Blair "third way" approach? Would it be intellectually coherent? Politically appealing? Policy effective?
I'm skeptical, but if there's ever been a time in America more open to new ideas and approaches, it might be this one. I just hope that the ideas are broadly Progressive, in the Teddy Roosevelt sense of making PROGRESS, not in the sense of "synonym with liberal." I'll definitely be watching to see what, if anything, comes of the January 7 meeting. I'll also be watching Chuck Robb, who -- along with his wonderful wife -- were such big supporters of Jim Webb in 2006. Speaking of Webb, he sure sounds like he'd fit in with Bloomberg, Hart, Cohen, Whitman, Robb et al. Just a thought.
Why is Robb there? Probably spending too much time over in the faculty lounge at GMU law. That has to rot your brain after a while.
~
Also, Christine Todd Whitman's name really ought not be mentioned in the same breath as Sam Nunn or John Danforth. She absolutely disgraced herself. What a waste of a promising future.
So his named was floating around for SecDef prior to the Gates appointment.
What is important to me about the meeting .... is that a good group of centrist politicians are concerned, quite concerned that the major parties will be stupid enough to elect this primary season .... VERY POLARIZING candidates.
If Obama wins the nomination .... and then picks the "right" Vice President ... I think the Bloomberg "candidacy" card goes away. Can't say I see that potential in the Republican field ... other than longshot Ron Paul.
All Big IFs right now, hence the apprehension of good people about the polarization of our politics.
Of course consensus would be a wonderful thing, as would world peace, free love without disease and every other item on the laundry-list of utopia. The question is, how do you get there? Do you simply split every question down the middle? If so, then there's the classic bargaining incentive for each side to push their position farther towards the extremes so that the "center" (a purely theoretical concept) ends up closer to their side in the end.
Partisanship, like a lawyer, is a terrible thing until when you need it. If Martin Luther King had settled for "consensus" with the Southern segregationists, where would we be today? Perhaps blacks would be allowed to use public facilities between the hours of 3pm-7pm?
Sometimes I think Broder and others like him just hate political reporting in general, and want Unity 08 to succeed so they can fire off columns in 2 seconds then kick back and play golf. Personally, my suggestion is that Broder should relocate to, say China, where the political decisions, however brutal or unpopular, are always consensus choices of One Big Happy Party. Because that's the only way all that bad, bad partisanship is going away.
Sometimes I think Broder and others like him just hate political reporting in general, and want Unity 08 to succeed so they can fire off columns in 2 seconds then kick back and play golf.
Surely you can't be suggesting that he puts anymore effort than that into things now . . .
If we add another party, that will be just another group of people to bribe with junkets and trips to golf courses around the world disquised as something that will benefit the tax payer.
We need someone who will limit the influence of lobbyists and multinational corporations. Only then will the parties come together for the greater good.
We know that Senator Clinton won't do anything to limit influence of big business. I am currently on the Edwards bandwagon, but will support Obama if he doesn't do well in the first few states. I think both men would be a good choice. Though Edwards is of course the best choice ;-)
Senator Clinton will drive away independents and moderate Democrats in masse. We just don't like her. If you look at where her money is coming from, you will understand why.
Virginia's idiocy in switching from Robb to Allen in 2000 continues to amaze me as much as Virginia's genius in switching from Allen to Webb in 2006.
As for Christine Todd Whitman - give her some credit, at least she quit the Bush EPA out of frustration eventually. I personally think she thought she could change it from the inside and left when she realized she couldn't. And, she founded a PAC "It's My Party Too..." That's just funny.
Interesting fact about Whitman: only Republican to win statewide office in New Jersey in the past 15 years, and she didn't even get 50% of the vote. They say New Jersey's a swing state, but it's one of only TWO states (the other being Washington) with a Democratic Senate and State House, two Democratic Senators, a Democratic Governor, a Democratic immediate-past governor, voted for Dem. president in 00 and 04, and a Democratic-majority House delegation. Democrats never win in a landslide in New Jersey, they just always win.