The Hour unleashed an article about presidential politics and yours truly, and so today I get to tackle an introspective about politics and myself. In the years since I took up blogging about politics, I’ve discovered that there was more interest in what political affiliation I was registered as, than where my political leanings really were. I’ve found that at times amusing, but often disheartening. For me at least, I can understand that maybe in the 1950’s when organizational partyesque activities were at their peak, party affiliation actually meant something. But it’s 2008, and the majority party in American politics is the unaffiliated or non-committed voter.
These days it is easy to see why there is such a great movement away from party politics. Political issues have grown beyond the basic concepts of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and into the bureaucratic implementation of policy. Put another way, if we had a group of guys holed up in Philadelphia drafting a new constitution, there’d be protests over who was being excluded and the constitution would be about 265 pages long. We don’t have to imagine this scenario, but a look across the pond to the EU constitution, it is an illustrative example. Ask not indeed.
Free agency changed the game of football, and combined with fantasy leagues, changed the way many fans view the game. And so it goes for politics for me. While the parties drifted towards idealistic rhetoric, I started looking at performance and stats. Not quite the stats most people look to in the political sphere, but a rather simple concept — how someone got to a decision point was perhaps more important than what the decision point turned out to be.
Which means that I don’t believe in an idealistic alignment of issues between the politicians I like, respect and support. On my political bandwagon there’s room for the many slices of interests and issues that I care about. I admire the politicians that ask questions and listen to all sides of an issue before making a decision and have no tolerance for those that don’t and rely on others to make decisions for them.
For the presidential race this year, I spent some time studying the candidates, what they said who they brought on board as advisors. The federal government in this country is broken in so many ways. I’ve always been a big believer in a smaller, leaner, more efficient government, which means I seek out politicians who have a love of country and a passion for mastering the levers of political process. I came to support Hillary Clinton because of the extraordinary level of detail and grasp of issues she has mastered. I have no doubts that when it comes to implanting change, Hillary will be the one who will know where and how to get it done. But this is not just my opinion. The foreign policy wonks that I read, are saying the same things, as this observation by Steve Clemmons indicates:
That said, there is a great deal I do admire in Hillary Clinton — and one of the things that simply can’t be disputed is her work ethic. I’ve met her a number of times, usually at receptions — and each time I decided not to waste the moment with trivial banter but to throw an idea at her or mention a person or issue that would help me understand how real, how informed, or alternatively — how contrived — she was.
Every single time she jumped on the issue I brought up and expressed two or three dimensions to the issue that showed she was deeply steeped in this or that policy. In my New America Foundation role, I helped build and support programs as diverse as debates about genetic scientific advancements to family work issues, health care, and wireless spectrum — not to mention my own core interests in foreign policy, national security/defense issues, and international economic policy. Hillary Clinton and I have had quick encounters that involved her sharing incredibly diverse and serious policy commentary.
The last time I had such a discussion with her was after she had won her last Senate race in New York, and she and Bill Clinton were a bit early to a UN Foundation reception honoring Muhammad Yunus. We had a really interesting discussion about what should be on a roster of 21st century threats and how our national security and foreign policy resources should be reorganized to deal with future challenges rather than keeping vested interests tied to old threats well funded. Her quick grasp of what I was trying to get at — and a detailed response that was serious and level-headed — really surprised me as I’m used to politicians who typically have to fake their way through detail.
Steve Clemmons writes some of the best analysis of foreign policy on the Internet. The issues that confront America from a global perspective are not simply reliant on a simplistic characterization of change, but require a detailed level of understanding regarding cultural, diplomatic and economic details that can’t be glossed over by rhetoric. We’ve had 8 years of faith based foreign policy ideology, and what we need now, more than ever, is a return to policy incrementalism that achieves results.
Domestically, the weak dollar, weakened financial markets and regulatory institutions have to be addressed quickly. Science based policy in many of our government agencies needs to be restored. It’s not enough to simply identify the problems, it’s important to identify solutions and measure their successes. Throughout Hillary’s legislative career, she has followed such a process.
From Teddy Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan, the list of presidents I’ve long admired share a similar trait in that they eschewed the idea that any one political party reflects the totality of political philosophy. While some may place partisanship above all else, I like to think that my hybrid political positions is the truer nature of where most people are.
But please try not to associate me with the three amigos who think they don’t need no stinkin’ badges.
