David Broder is considered the 'Dean' of the Washington press corps; one of the old hands, a veritable birthing ground of conventional wisdom. In the context of the current press corps, this revolves primarily around finding wisdom and merit in half-corruptions instead of full corruptions, being opaque beyond the call of duty, and blanket dismissals of any opinion or idea that does not have the bluest of blue blood -- by that meaning any idea that does not come from the select narrow circuit of stuffed and inbred individuals that David Broder himself has deemed worthy of listening to.
By passing every issue, every moral exchange, every race and every catastrophe through Broder's own needle's eye of allowed voices and allowed opinions, Broder's columns regularly accomplish a level of literate inbreeding that other columnists aspire to. He is one of the guiding forces behind the notion that balance requires equal offense on all sides, pairing unconscionable offenses against petty ones, clearly illegal ones against the perceived gauche.
Broder decides who is presidential, and who is not; who is arrogant, and who is not; who among the citizenry has an allowable voice at the table of politics, and who does not. He is the inverse of a Thomas Paine; he is a man who exists not to find or celebrate freedoms or patriotism, but to dole those properties out, ticket-like, to the narrowest of social and political classes.
And as such, he is indeed the Dean of the Washington media establishment, for he represents in his columns them and them alone. Their opinions; their frustrations; their petty bickerings; their insistence that the reins of power belong in exactly one pair of hands: theirs.
Broder's
column this week is a masterpiece of the genre. Willfully and torturously shallow, Broder draws in the hand-chosen, allowed combatants of American discourse, sets them in motion in fictitious battle, and declares who must wait outside, outside the ring, while the Washington press corps decides the fate of the match. It is a work of brilliance, in a town where muddy and unfocused thinking is considered brilliance. It is a work of studied moderation, in a town where moderation is defined always as the path of the least thought and resistance.
Broder's column, therefore, requires a full and complete exploration. At the risk of offending the Press Corps, who decide who is and who is not allowed to have such opinions, and which ones they shall have, I shall venture in uninvited. Like a stray dog snuck into the house, I shall piss on David Broder's rug, and await his scorn.
Independence Days
By David S. Broder
Thursday, September 21, 2006; Page A25
American politics reached a critical turn last week. The revolt of several Republican senators against President Bush's insistence on a free hand in treating terrorist detainees signaled the emergence of an independent force in elections and government.
Previous forces arrayed against torturing individuals, including human rights groups, Democrats, the U.N., Democrats, religious figures, Democrats, constitutional scholars, international legal experts, the military, the CIA, bloggers and Democrats were the words of squabbling children: now that a bare handful of Republicans have spoken out against it, the issue has reached a critical turn.
This movement is not new, but the moral scale of the issue -- torture -- and the implications for both constitutional and international law give it an epic dimension, even if it is ultimately settled by compromise.
This is an essential point, and a light that will guide you well in any exploration of the Washington psyche. The Holy Grail and only guiding principle of modern, responsible centrism, Washington style, is compromise, and all issues require it. Clear constitutional violations can be met by reasonable compromise; violate the Constitution only a little bit. Corruption and cronyism can be met by reasonable compromise; issue a stern and toothless resolution against it, and have slightly less corruption. Clear manipulation and manufacturing of "fact" in matters of death and war, on the other hand: allowable, by pointing out that facts are relative and tricky things, and spin is declarative and institutionalized fact, if it has appeared in the words of one of the chosen individuals of power and purpose who have been declared, by martial press law, such consummate and clever liars as to be worthy of blanket amnesty.
Compromise is, in the Washington press corps, the precise equivalent of balance and therefore of propriety. If there is one group of people that believes America should torture prisoners, and another group that believes torture is amoral, clearly the answer most worthy of America is to only torture some prisoners. Or to torture prisoners, but not as much. Or to grant plausible deniability while torturing prisoners.
Indeed, compromise even of core values of human decency and ethics, of clear Constitutional violations or violations of international treaty and law, is a worthwhile thing, for holy Compromise ranks in importance above all those other things. It allows questions of morality to remain ambiguous and unanswered. It makes no claim on a pundit, forcing him into an uncomfortable position of taking sides. It allows even the most serious of issues, those that directly clash and battle with American integrity, decency and law to pass by without upsetting the tea tray.
The senators involved -- John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner -- were also instrumental in forming the "Gang of 14," the bipartisan bloc that seized control of the Senate last year and wrote the compromise that prevented a drastic change in the filibuster rule that otherwise would have triggered a bitter partisan divide.
Yes, the Gang of 14, principled and proud, that stood up between the warring parties, between the partisan Republicans that sought to rewrite the very rules of the Senate, mid-term, in order to violate one of the sanctified protections of the minority party, and the bitter, partisan Democrats, equally guilty of partisanship for daring to be outraged by the Republican action.
All hail compromise, flaxen-haired and of chiseled features! All hail the Gang of 14, the group of Senators who stood up against violating the rules and comity of the Senate floor, and wisely stood up to declare themselves equally against not violating those same rules!
The Gang of 14 represents, truly, the orgasmic pinnacle, the flag-on-Iwo-Jima peak of Washington press corps moderation, the veritable Star Chamber of compromising against wrong while never quite standing up for the right.
These are not ordinary men. McCain, from Arizona, is probably the leading candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination. Graham, from South Carolina, is the star among the younger Republican senators. Warner, from Virginia, embodies the essence of traditional Reagan conservatism: patriotism, support for the military, civility.
Unlike all Democrats that oppose Republican extremism, who are bitter, partisan and not worthy of mention. The three do, however, explicitly convey the essence of traditional Reagan conservativism, which is saying one thing while doing another, speaking grandly while performing little, and claiming high principles while compromising those same principles, in the halls of government, with regularity.
Indeed, the three represent the most divergence with conventional wisdom that will be allowed, in this column or any other: principles, but only in moderation. Standing up to the Republicans, without actually becoming, you know... not a Republican.
They were joined in their opposition to Bush's call for extraordinary interrogation techniques by Colin Powell, the former secretary of state and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who is still, despite the controversies over his role in Iraq policy, one of the most admired Americans.
Admired, again, for his spectacular capabilities for compromise. Impart false information on matters of war, yes, but be slightly sniffly about it, mostly in private, afterwards, which shows the precise degree of integrity expected and demanded of politicians within the circles of the meritorious. Colin Powell is considered, by the Washington press corps, to be The Most Ethical Republican.
It may very well be true, but that is hardly the endorsement many presume it to be.
That these Republicans -- and others -- were ready to join the Democrats in rejecting Bush's plan caused the White House to scramble for alternatives and House Republican leaders to postpone a scheduled vote. The revolt goes well beyond three men.
And a lucky thing, too. Had only Democrats spoken up for the rule of law, it would have been petty and partisan. A few voices in the Republican party, men largely considered cowards and traitors by the Republican Party infrastructure and those within the GOP that chart the fates of Republican legislation, adds some legitimacy on issues of basic morality.
Though these three men may be considered to be mere toenail clippings on the larger body of the GOP, that they are willing to stand up -- partially -- and speak out -- quietly -- against, oh, inhumane and brutal treatment of prisoners in American custody in a time of war lends an air of respectability to what otherwise would have been a petty partisan trinket.
What it really signals is a new movement in this country -- what you could rightly call the independence party. Its unifying theme can be found in the Declaration of Independence's language when Jefferson invoked "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."
A new movement, indeed. A new and sudden movement against torture, and for the rule of law. A movement of "decent respect to the opinions of mankind." Is there a new movement? Are there glimmers of, perhaps, some movement, some collection of opinions that contradict the Republican Party and the unchallenged, dominant, solely Republican government?
Indeed, though it seems you would have to go back to the time of Jefferson to find writings about such a thing, it is almost as if there were other people and parties with comments to provide in the ongoing American story, forces other than a bare handful of men that have set themselves up as the only men worth listening to. It is almost -- though we must not go there -- almost as if there were opinions worth listening to other than those held by a handful of Republicans in the top positions of government power, and the figures of the press that dangle from them, as close as earrings.
If only there were a party that one could turn to, if the Republicans proved themselves to be incompetent or incapable of government, unwilling to govern with a respect for the opinions of all mankind! If only there were an alternative available!
I know! There is! We see it before us, the Republican Party, shining like a dim but hopeful beacon on a foul and rocky Republican-constructed shoreline! It, surely, will provide a path of relief from the constant corruption of law and corruption of the American spirit caused by the untrustworthy and unapologetic Republican Party! Guide us, O voices of responsible compromise in all matters, no matter how clearly unethical, illegal, amoral or corrupt! We seek a new party, one that is not the Republican Party, and in the Republican Party we may yet find it!
When Powell wrote that Bush's demand would compound the world's "doubt [about] the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," he was appealing to Jefferson's standard.
And to a standard as pointedly obvious, visible, and physical as a cheesesteak.
It is a standard this administration has flagrantly rejected. Bush was elected twice, over Democrats Al Gore and John Kerry, whose know-it-all arrogance rankled Midwesterners such as myself.
Hard stop, here. Know-it-all arrogance?
I will never understand the insistence on open hostility towards those born with the crippling disability of intelligence. Or perhaps I do understand, since it is omnipresent, the staple of every high school social hierarchy carried for decades thereafter as one of few lessons of our national education system that is universally remembered after illicit prom-night beer has killed off the rest.
It is Least Common Denominatorism -- so that I don't look clever or arrogant, I suppose we should call that "dumbing down" -- the same guiding force around every prime-time television schedule ever devised, expressed as the fervent belief that nobody in any position of respect or power should be obviously more intelligent than you are, and if they are, they had better damn well hide it.
If David Broder, Dean of Pundits, is sure of one thing, in this world, it is that obvious intelligence reeks of arrogance. If Al Gore had, instead of writing books and shocking national figures via lengthy and nuanced answers, gone on the Tonight Show to fart the alphabet in time with an orchestra, he would now not only be President, but have the mantle of presidential that can only be bestowed by a bus full of bored national press figures looking for a story to write that will not tax the boundaries of their 9 a.m. Skittles-and-diet-cola high.
As for me, when looking for a President I would choose the obviously intelligent over the questionably so. I would choose the man who gave the long answers over the man who could give none; I would even choose the pedantic over the pleasant, if I had a country to run that I cared about, and one facing dozens of challenges on an everyday basis, the sorts of challenges that have regularly worn through the skills, patience, and expertise of even the truly great men of history.
The country thought Bush was a pleasant, down-to-earth guy who would not rock the boat. Instead, swayed by some inner impulse or the influence of Dick Cheney, he has proved to be lawless and reckless. He started a war he cannot finish, drove the government into debt and repeatedly defied the Constitution.
Indeed, Broder and I are in complete agreement here. If only there were a group of people that considered it their duty, their responsibility to look past such shallow character judgments and down to the nuances of issues. To determine the reality of a candidate's history and positions, rather than the airbrushed exterior. To examine proposals like "free tax cuts with no repercussions", and determine if the rhetoric might have a hidden downside.
A corps of people who would press such issues, to perhaps coin a phrase.
Now, however, you can see the independence party forming -- on both sides of the aisle. They are mobilizing to resist not only Bush but also the extremist elements in American society -- the vituperative, foul-mouthed bloggers on the left and the doctrinaire religious extremists on the right who would convert their faith into a whipping post for their opponents.
Foul-mouthed bloggers?
Fuck you. Fuck you in the eye.
Impending vapors aside, however, we here once again see the balance to be drawn for the national debate.
One side of the debate believes the torture of prisoners to be legally justifiable, and if not, demands the rule of law be bent to allow it. They belief that presidential authority knows no boundaries, and that the president can strip citizens of their citizenship; can conduct widespread espionage against the American public in direct violation of explicit law; can remove the requirements of evidence and trial; can hold individuals, declared as enemies, without reason, recourse, or even acknowledgment. They believe their religion is the One religion, and demand America subvert itself before even the most extreme of its requirements. They deny the ideals of the founding fathers; they promote and harness bigotries; they rewrite laws and traditions only to break them yet again; they declare corruption godly, in the name of power. To help implement their national campaign strategy, they have chosen an Unindicted Co-Conspirator, a man whose strategic merits in electoral politics can be summed up as Not Currently In Jail, but As Close As You Can Get.
But their opponents have a potty mouth.
Of the two, I know what I would choose, and which group to associate with. Of the two, I would be proud to stand with one against the other, even if a naughty word or two or five crept from under the carpet during the discussion.
But I would be wrong, in the eyes of men who believe that to stand against extremism is equal to extremism itself. This is Balance, and it is the same demonstration of balance that exists everywhere, in the punditry and among the press corps, halls of power riddled with self-aggrandizing premises hoisted far above concerns of mere morality. In not choosing sides against effronteries, they choose clearly and decisively, while having to hardly raise an eyebrow or flex a wrist.
We have seen this before, in the Clinton years. Broder was the Dean then, too, deciding which offenses showed true gaucheness and which were forgivable. Lying about consensual, tawdry sex, a constitutional travesty (thank heavens we survived the near-holocaust of earlier times, when nuclear war and Marilyn Monroe threatened both to end the Republic.) Illegalities, corruptions, and Constitutional violations, however, have yet to impart the same urgency, because they do not offend David Broder to the extent that sex does, or to the extent that swear words do, or to the extent that looking too smart for your own good does.
To David Broder, ethics is something worn on the lips. There and only there. Having the appearance of coarseness has direct equivalency to torture. Battling to alter the meaning of the Constitution of the United States is exactly the same as saying shit in mixed company.
This is true of the Washington press corps, in near entirety.
The center is beginning to fight back. Michael Bloomberg, the Republican mayor of New York, is holding a fundraiser for Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat running as an independent against the bloggers' favorite, Ned Lamont.
In the eyes of David Broder, the noble center is defined as anything that is not a Democrat. True Democrats have no place, have no value. To be praised is Michael Bloomberg, a Republican, holding a fundraiser for Joe Lieberman, who had the wisdom to simply stop being a Democrat when the voters of his state rejected him.
This is centrism: a man who acquiesces to every affront by Bush that Broder himself has listed just above, a man who through his votes supports and enables that very same incompetent, extremist agenda that Broder denounces, and considers the acquiescence to be comity and leadership.
With one paragraph, Broder denounces lawlessness and recklessness; with another, he casts aside those concerns in order to paint mealy-mouthed, ineffective, self-serving blustering against them as the most noble kind of politics.
Truly, this man has never met a value worth fighting for. Truly, this man has never raised pen to ink in favor of anything but the pedantic sortof, or decisive maybe, or sniffled perhaps. We are determined to become a nation of blusterers, of men who fight for the soul of the country only when the sun is out and the winds are fair and somebody important is casting an eye in our direction, but not with too much passion -- that would be unseemly -- and not unless we are first blessed into the narrow group of opinions that matter.
His election is important, as is Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee's in Rhode Island, because both would signal that independence is a virtue to be rewarded.
And that incumbency is a right, not a privilege.
Similarly important, though less publicized, is Republican Sen. Mike DeWine's race in Ohio. DeWine is an ally of McCain & Co. in forming a center for the Senate; his opponent, Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown, is a loud advocate of protectionist policies that offer a false hope of solving our trade and job problems.
The moderation of a new center, you see, requires hard-right conservative principles, but not Bush hard-right conservative principles, so that we may once again play the game of pundit astonishment when longtime conservative figures like the conservative McCain implement conservative policies in a conservative way, when all we were really paying attention to is whether or not they looked sufficiently presidential when telling us how not-conservative they were.
Centrism, as an aside, is a decidedly conservative thing, and revolves around free trade.
A "decent respect" begins at home, with an acknowledgment of public opinion. Americans are saying no to excess greenhouse gases and no to open borders; yes to embryonic stem cell research, yes to a path to earned citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants and yes to a living wage. Six more states are likely to approve increases in the minimum wage through ballot initiatives in November.
This, truly, is an astonishment. Here, David Broder has managed to list the policies of the Democratic Party almost verbatim, and yet Broder is apparently unaware.
A party and movement revolving around a "decent respect" would indeed begin at home, would indeed acknowledge the public opinion, and govern based on those opinions. It would include environmentalism and security, science and human compassion, and economic security for all. These things have not the slightest bit to do with Republicanism, or of the "Independent" movement Broder envisions of paying cheap lip service to these things without actually having to vote for any of them.
But the frightening face of the Democratic Party is apparently not so frightening, when a figure of the press happens upon it in a crowd and, unfamiliar, compliments it on its beauty.
A congressional election with lots of new faces and a scare for many returning veterans is important as a signal to next year's likely leaders such as Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell and Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi that they can't design their strategies simply to satisfy the most rabid of their party's extremes; they have to govern down the center and work across party lines.
Short of swear words, Broder has yet to point to a single example of Democratic extremism or rabidity; he simply knows it to be the case, perhaps because a stray dirty word is still lodged in his ear, altering his sense of balance and making his writing walk in circles.
What extremism exists, in the actual Democratic congress, that Mr. Broder presumes will be implemented on the first, broken-glass days of shifted power? Name one, and name one that compares with torture, with domestic espionage, with detention without trial, with presidential assertions of extralegal powers. Name one that will strike fear into the very balanced, very centrist, very responsible press corps, so that we may judge the extremism. The minimum wage? No, that was a positive. Checks on unrestrained power? Called for by Broder himself.
This is a column in a paper in a city without a compass. The brilliance of conventional wisdom meanders along, self-contradictory, finding bungling and improprieties and extremism unpalatable, but not quite as unpalatable as altering the course.
And that in turn would set the stage for a 2008 election in which the two branches of the independence movement -- Republican and Democratic -- could compete in a campaign that would, for a change, show a "decent respect" for the intelligence of the American people.
I will shock Mr. Broder again, here, a final stain on his rug, by noting that if the best America can do is a debate between those that are for torture and against it, weakly, those who are for preemptive war and those who are against it weakly, or those who are for Constitutional subversions and those who are against them passively, then truly, we are not as great a country as we have declared ourselves to be, and our leadership in both government and press has become rudderless and convictionless.
To his credit, Broder here indeed is more than eager to balance the two major American political parties against each other: the extremist Republican party, and the less extremist Republican party. Democrats to be little more than an afterthought of the process, like the charming days of the Whigs, but at least they get a singular nonnegative mention, in the last declarative sentence.
This column should be preserved in amber, not because of any great significance, but as historic example of the utterly unhistoric. With men of such convictions as a Broder or Brooks, it is worth documenting what independent thought represents, in the halls of power, and just how narrowly the bounds of independence have been set.
Because to the press corps and pundits of Washington, conviction is something for extremists, and a mere voice in the debate is something to be rationed off, through a spigot, to those neither too clever or too shocking, those that will never stray too far from the narrow brick road of the obvious, and those that will not tax the intellect of their press followers very often or very much.
The centrism hailed by the pundit class, the class that decides all these things, is to be against injustice with passivity and to buckle easily, so as not to actually cause the change being requested. To do otherwise would be, as Broder says, disrespectful. And Mr. Broder knows about respect, because he is a man who determines who should receive it and who should not.
But I might contend, at further risk of abominable incivility, that a "decent respect", as Broder calls it, requires listening to all of the American voters, not just the subset that Broder submits himself to hearing. It requires two parties or more, not the kabuki of one party compromising only with itself. It requires balance based on record and research and fact, not the snifflings of who was or was not deemed "arrogant" by men who orbit arrogance like so many moons. It requires taking sides where sides are clearly warranted, and doing so with conviction when America requires it.
That would be a decent respect. I would like to see it.