Though this writer comes to you from the left side of the dial, faithful readers will have noted an abiding interest in voices who defy the party line. Although politicized types on both sides sneer at independents and moderates, it is the undecided–or those who insist on being persuaded–who typically end up casting the decisive vote on controversial issues. Or, to be precise, they probably would cast the deciding vote, if their voice was decently represented in our national discourse.
Arguably, a great deal of the effectiveness of the Republican party and their right-wing supporters comes from their ability to suppress what Graham Greene called "the virtue of disloyalty" and hold to the party line. On environmental issues, for example, polls say that the nation as a whole is nowhere near as interested in looting the planet as are the corporate interests backing the Republican party.
As Kevin Drum wrote in a recent post, "Conservatives have also done a masterful job of demonizing, for example, "feminist," "environmentalist," "trial lawyer," and "labor union," despite the fact that sizable majorities of Americans support equal rights for women and stronger environmental rules, and equally sizable majorities are helped far more than harmed by trial lawyers and labor unions."
So for those of us who want to see a truly open debate on issues in this country–and in the House–it’s exciting to see the monolithic Right cracking up. And it’s not just the Right; this edition of a new feature called Contrarian Round-Up includes a hot button issue beloved by leftists–the allegation that the Bush administration stole the most recent national election.
From John Fund, a reliably right-wing writer for the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal:
President Bush has now gone further in internalizing the lessons of the Bork debacle. Harriet Miers is a "superstealth" nominee–a close friend of the president with no available paper trail who keeps her cards so close to her chest they might as well be plastered on it. If Ms. Miers is confirmed, it will reinforce the popular belief that the Supreme Court is more about political outcomes than the rule of law.
Andrew Sullivan, the most prominent libertarian voice on the right, vents his disgust with another partisan who as much as anyone sets the party line for the Right, Rush Limbaugh:
Maybe the memo never made it to Rush, so let’s see if we can get this through to him: it was the "held-in-contempt" Bill Clinton who reduced the size of government; it is your president and the conservative movement that has expanded it at a faster clip than at any time since FDR. That’s not an opinion. It’s what is called a fact. Deal with it. Or you too will never haul yourself out of the past.
And the cheerfully caustic Timothy Noah at Slate brings up a rather stunning criticism of the President’s decision-making abilities from a figure revered on the Right, Margaret Thatcher, (although it’s hearsay, from an ally who lunched with her recently):
The former chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain, Lord Palumbo, who lunched with Mrs. T six months ago, told me recently what she said when he asked her if, given the intelligence at the time, she would have made the decision to invade Iraq. "I was a scientist before I was a politician, Peter," she told him carefully. "And as a scientist I know you need facts, evidence and proof—and then you check, recheck and check again. The fact was that there were no facts, there was no evidence, and there was no proof. As a politician the most serious decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from which they may not return."
And finally, left-leaning Mother Jones assigns an experienced investigative reporter and a fact-checker to look at three books alleging that the 2004 Presidential election was stolen. Although applauding skeptics for raising the issue, and doubting that Bush won Ohio by all of 118,000 votes, Mark Hertsgaard nonetheless concludes:
Yet it remains far from clear that Bush stole the election, and I say that as someone who has written that Bush did steal Florida and the White House in 2000 (and who—full disclosure—is friendly with skeptics Miller and Wasserman). First, some of the most far-reaching acts of potential disenfranchisement, such as the purging of voter rolls, were legal—which is why one lesson of Ohio 2004 is that voting systems throughout the nation need fundamental reform. Second, even if Kerry had won Ohio, the national vote went to Bush by 3 million votes. Ohio would have given Kerry the presidency by the same unholy route that Bush traveled in 2000 and that led so many Democrats to urge, rightly, the abolishment of the Electoral College. Third, the skeptics’ position is weakened by the one-sidedness of their arguments and their know-it-all tone. They have a plausible case to make, but they act like it’s a slam dunk and imply that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is either stupid, bought, or on the other side—not the best way to win people over.
Speaking of winning people over, the farsighted Ronald Brownstein of the LATimes–whom many contrarians, notably Mickey Kaus of Slate, consider to be the best political analyst in the country–suggests today that the Karl Rove electoral strategy of relying on evangelicals and ditto-heads on the Right appears doomed in 2006, precisely because of a loss of support among independents.
In recent national surveys, Bush’s standing among independents has dropped to its lowest point during his White House tenure. In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey released Monday, 32% of independents said they approved of his performance as president, whereas twice as many — 64% — said they disapproved. Attitudes toward Congress are even more negative. In the new poll, 1 in 4 independents said they approved of Congress’ performance, whereas about 7 in 10 said they disapproved. Among all Americans, the approval rating for Congress in the survey was 29% — its lowest level since 1994, the year Democrats lost their majorities in both chambers.
Now maybe we can have a real debate in this country. Wouldn’t that be interesting?
Kit Stolz 