from the economist:
The race will be about policy substance above and beyond the backdrop formed by the drama of Iraq. Both parties are confronted with deep questions about their identities. The Republicans have to deal with the consequences of George Bush’s big-government big-foreign-policy conservatism. Should they return to the anti-government policies of Mr Gingrich and his fellow radicals? Or to the realist foreign policy of Mr Bush senior? The party will probably have candidates willing to offer vigorous answers to all these questions, from Newt himself to long-standing advocates of realpolitik such as Chuck Hagel, a senator from Nebraska. It will also have candidates who are willing to offer unexpected variations on traditional themes. Mr Giuliani is a hawk on terrorism but a liberal on social issues; Mr McCain has developed an idiosyncratic variety of reform Republicanism.
The Democrats confront equally urgent questions. Should they return to Bill Clinton’s centrist policies? Or do they need to listen to the left? The former first lady will make a formidable champion of Clintonism. But the centre of gravity in her party has shifted dramatically leftwardsthe relentless growth in inequality has put a question mark against Mr Clinton’s support for globalisation, and the debacle in Iraq has strengthened the party’s pacifist wing.
yes to anti-government. i guess those brits will just have to call me a radical. there’s no shame in denouncing the welfare state that has made state and federal governments enablers of the lazy. yes, i realize that there are exceptions where government assistance is necessary, but once a bureaucracy is created, it never gets smaller. hurricane katrina taught us a painful lesson — that it will not always be possible to depend on government to take care of us in an emergency situation, no matter which party is running it. the will to confront the enemies we face and to always be vigilant in defending america’s freedoms begins and ends with the american people, not with our government. the united states government can do more than it is doing to protect us, but there will never be any guarantees that there will not be another terrorist attack on US soil.
(that is…unless you assume the opposite of pat robertson’s predictions)
no to realist foreign policy. it didn’t work for bush 41. it won’t work now. oh yeah…and james baker isn’t a genius.
do we want a return to clintonism? was it really all that great the first time we saw it? if we really want to see something similar, then the country will have to kick out the democrats again so we can watch hillary compromise with the new republican congress. that would be fun. no, i’m done watching the clinton approach to foreign and domestic policy. 8 years of that was quite enough, thanks. i think the democrats should try someone new. i still haven’t seen the can’t miss candidate in the democratic field so far.
i think it would be a mistake for the democrats to embrace the far left. that’s never a great strategy to win general elections.
tags: newt gingrich, hillary clinton, ’08 election