If there's one thing I've learned about politics, it's that being independent minded is both advantageous and a severe handicap. Everyone likes you, perhaps, but nobody loves you. This, sadly, is why Senator John McCain's potential Republican caucus loss (which seems likely in my mind) will be a tragedy for America.
While there is no doubt in my mind that Republican front-runners like Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney or Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama love their country, each individual's desire for change has me shuddering, wondering where the pendulum, which has swung wildly to the right (and sometimes in circles, parabolas and even completed some acrobatic tricks) under the Bush administration, will swing next.
The problem with pendulums is that they just don't keep still, like crack users. Nearly all of my friends here in Washington are Democrats and support Mrs. Clinton, an obvious potential swing to left. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm certainly not judging. In my judgment, however, moderation is typically key, and the polarization of politics in America should be mitigated rather than strengthened. John McCain, not without his faults, is far more experienced in government than any of the presidential candidates and also a centrist. Who better to stop the endless presidential swings, which has led only to more turmoil in the US?
The potential winners, however, are not so kind to the issue-oriented and moderates of America. I have not heard one peep out of the major candidates, for example, that they are willing to bend their liberal or conservative tenants in order to pass legislation that actually represents what the collective majority of people want. Rather, they show every intention of continuing a dubious tradition: ramming bills through Congress that only half or probably much less of the population actually supports (although there are exceptions to this rule, such as the latest immigration over-haul attempt).
Mr. Obama, to his credit, has said that he likes to calmly listen to all sides, taking everyone's view into account when making voting and policy decisions. More important than what a politician says, however, is always what he or she does not say. Obama has been noted by many political strategists and talking-heads to be one of the most liberal presidential candidates out there, even more liberal than Mrs. Clinton, "which is hard to do," according to Karl Rove. Thus, regardless of how any one of the candidates presents him or herself, they aren't looking to run their administration by consensus, which as everyone should know by now is not always a good thing.
The fact that each candidate holds tightly to his or her beliefs is certainly not a reprehensible trait. Indeed, the individual who doesn't own his or her beliefs is often the most dangerous. This view, however, in the context of politics, is far too simplistic because beliefs are more than just a right-wing or left-wing worldview, it can also be a worldview that puts real, positive results before one's own personal ideals and beliefs that will inherently, at one time or another, conflict with actual progress.
Supreme Court associate justice Clarence Thomas's memoir My Grandfather's Son, a highly inspiring book I've been reading the last couple of weeks, offers a good example of how single-mindedness can destroy opportunity when it's woven into official government policy: over his many years in government, he continually spoke against the racial quota system used by American universities, which was supported by liberal whites and nearly all black civil rights leaders and groups during the 1970s and 1980s. The focus for Democrats and liberals was to get more blacks into white colleges. Sounds fair enough, right? The problem, however, was two fold: first, no one bothered to look at whether those black students were actually graduating after matriculation, and if they did graduate, how they were viewed by prospective employers, since many only gained admission on account of their race.
The ideals of the civil rights groups and the liberal establishment were not incorrect—they desired equality, which meant (to them) crafting a government law that required a certain number of minorities to be admitted to colleges. However a good intention this might have been, it was and remains completely misguided, because the focus was not on the end result, which was a highly educated college graduate (A much more difficult end result to promote than simply percentages of minorities attending colleges). Unfortunately for Justice Thomas, he received the scathing criticism for not supporting the quota system, despite his horrendous, first-hand experience of going through the failed system that civil rights activists and Democrats promoted.
The idea, in all this, is that single-mindedness—whether one is a Democrat or Republican—is always more of a liability than an asset, which is what scares me about the current presidential candidates. Each one, besides McCain, seems to be running for a reason other than bringing Americans back together again. "We've got to get America back on track," is a common theme I've been hearing for months from the top candidates. "Back on track," sadly, seems to mean only one thing: the opposite of President Bush.
Just as silly as any Republicans not voting for John McCain in the primaries (his loss almost certainly provides a win for the Democrats in the November) is how silly being the opposite of George Bush would be. Discounting every policy decision, every program and any ounce of progress made by the US during his tenure because of a shared hatred is unwise, unfair and dishonest.
If I was running for president, I would pick of the pieces, study them, look at what worked and what didn't, and move on, as I believe John McCain would. We need change, yes, but not another swing in the opposite direction—Congress' exceedingly dismal performance, even under new leadership, is proof enough. I'm resigned to think that "'back on track" really just means business as usual.
