Simply Politics & News

[jgbuz]

The realists take charge in Washington
POSTED: 5:12 a.m. EST, November 12, 2006
By Joe Klein
Time

The following is a summary of this week's Time magazine cover story.

(Time.com) -- This was a big deal. Certainly, it was the end of George W. Bush's radical experiment in partisan governance. It might have been even bigger than that: the end of the conservative pendulum swing that began with Ronald Reagan's revolution.

Not only did the Democrats lay a robust whupping on the Republicans in the midterm elections, but -- far worse -- the president was forced into a tacit acknowledgment that the defining policy of his administration, the war in Iraq, was failing.

In 1994, when Bill Clinton lost both houses of Congress, he merely replaced his consultants and, liberated from the liberal wing of his party, sailed into the enforced moderation of divided government.

Last week Bush replaced Donald Rumsfeld, the blustery symbol of American arrogance overseas -- and, after six years of near total control at home, had to adjust to a situation in which his vision had been rejected by the voters and his power seriously truncated.

Rumsfeld was replaced by Robert Gates, who had been a junior associate on the foreign policy team of President George H.W. Bush and was well schooled in the cautious "realism" that marked the reign of Bush the Elder.

In fact, if there was a common strand in last week's Democratic victories and Republican defeats, it was the ascendancy of realists. The architects of the Democratic victory, Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, had calculated with cold-eyed efficiency which candidates the party would support, regardless of the extent of their orthodoxy.

On the Republican side, realists seemed to be taking over the national security apparatus -- even if was not yet clear that the president would follow their advice.

Bush's decision to delay the sacking of Rumsfeld until after the election will undoubtedly stand as one of the greatest mistakes of his presidency.

It was a purely political decision, straight from the Karl Rove playbook: Show no sign of weakness or indecision in the midst of a campaign -- or, as Bill Clinton neatly summarized it, Strong and wrong beats weak and right.

Not this time. "Strong and wrong" may have cost Bush the election. It may also have cost him whatever chance he had for a dignified exit from Iraq. His refusal to change his team and his strategy prevented an effective response to the centrifugal disintegration of Iraq over the past few months.

The exit polls indicate that the war was not the main issue in the 2006 election. The general odor of corruption and incompetence emanating from Washington seemed to be the real motivator.

But the administration's stubbornness on Iraq, neatly symbolized by Rumsfeld's detachment from reality, certainly didn't help the GOP cause. Of course, it is assumed by most people in Washington that bipartisan efforts on even the smallest matters, much less the war in Iraq, will be near impossible.

You've heard the arguments: the House of Representatives will be controlled by ancient liberals of Vietnam vintage, just itching to investigate and indict; Bush has shown precious little inclination toward compromise in his various moral crusades -- tax cuts, Social Security reform, the war -- and Dick Cheney has shown even less.

The standard post-election gestures toward peace and bipartisanship certainly seemed more starchy than genuine. The president opened his press conference with an ironic shot at the media, "Why all the glum faces?" If Jane Austen were writing a novel about Bush's public aspect, the title would be "Pride and Petulance."

But for the sake of argument and in the hope that sanity will prevail, let me make a mild case for optimism.

First, there is the muscular realism of the Democrats who ran the election campaigns, Schumer and Emanuel. They chose their candidates on pragmatism, not principle. Yes, many of the winners tended to be moderates, but that's because this was an election, especially on the House side, waged in moderate districts.

The question now is whether "winning" means blocking the president or demonstrating the ability to govern. It probably means a little of both, but I suspect the Democrats will be better served by proving they have the maturity to do the latter.

Why? Because the American public proved that it had the maturity to ignore, and in many cases rebel against, the sludge tide of negative ads that was splashed onto the public airwaves, primarily by Republicans.

This election was not only about a disastrous war and the stench of corruption, it was also about a style of politics -- the slashing negative politics practiced by a generation of media consultants in both parties. It was a message to politicians: Stop slinging the manure, and start getting serious about the nation's problems.