When Progressives Disagree...

It's ok. It happens sometimes. We're all still friends.

But I'm going to disagree, out loud, about the strength of a Richardson administration.

We tend toward vast pendular swings in the White House, reactive politics that do little to decrease the gridlock of federal policy. Personally, I think we can do better. I don't believe that the best response to the condemning fundamentalism of the current administration is a liberal fundamentalism instead. Our next President is not someone whose primary position should be one of opposition to the Bush Administration. Our next President should be someone whose primary position is toward something better, who will hear voices that oppose him or her and for whom the non-negotiables reflect consistent values without an undue inflexibility on how those values can be demonstrated.

That's one of the strongest reasons I think Richardson is the right choice for change. Our next President will inherit the remains of a gunslinging foreign policy... it's going to take a particular personality, one who can bring people to the table toward resolution and unity, to overcome the long shadow Bush II will leave behind. There is only one candidate who has promised to bring every single soldier home from Iraq. Richardson is that candidate. There is one candidate in this race who can realistically be called both diplomat and statesman. Richardson is that candidate. As a progressive, yes, there are particular issues on which I lean farther left, but I am not willing to compromise progress on the altar of Progressivism. If we elect a candidate who insists on a progressive agenda without first changing the way we talk about policy, we will have done little to affect real, long-term change. On the other hand, if we elect a candidate who can lead gently, by the hand, policy-makers on both sides of the fence toward sustainable progress, we will have done more to promoting a Progressive agenda that is more than an historical blip. I support Richardson not only for the administration I believe he is uniquely capable of leading, but for the candidates who, in eight or twelve or sixteen years, will be able to continue the momentum of true progressive leadership because the accomplishments we will have made will have been both progressive and proactive.

-Catherine McTamaney

Comments

[- Rick Lewis]

When progressives agree...

I think Richardson would be a strong president. I'm not sold on any one candidate quite yet - but "quiet competence" (which I referred to in my post yesterday) is something I, personally, really really want in a president.

And it sounds like you agree that he wouldn't try to sail off in some bold, new ideological direction. That's not necessarily a bad thing. After Bush, we need someone who will balance the budget, de-politicize the Justice Department, reign in executive power, put competent people in charge of various departments and agencies, fund common sense social programs and science, etc. - you know, restore the basics of sound government.

That will give us a platform for the next president (or even Richardson in his second term) to pursue a more bold agenda.

However... I do worry that Richardson would lack vision... limiting him to being a "good" president and not a "great" one. But, hey, good is good, you know? I'll take it!

[Catherine]

We're closer on this, then... I can hear the daisies growing around us as I type this.

I think Bill Richardson has a very strong vision for the country... he may not be a rockstar, but there's a decency in the Governor that speaks to me. I've had the chance to talk with him personally and was really impressed with how carefully he listened. Sometimes the vision is a more down-to-earth one, you know? It may not be rockstar mobs and catchy Celine Dion songs, but I'll take earnest over elitist any day.

[Jim Grinstead]

Everything you say about Richardson is true, but that doesn't mean he's the right man for the job.

He may have the credentials -- all of the candidates do -- but he doesn't have the leadership charisma that's needed right now. A Richardson administration would be bland and, despite Rick's comments, bland is not what we need right now.

My place is with Edwards and to justify that, I need to point to Lyndon Johnson.

Johnson was perhaps the last of the great presidents to come out of Congress. His knowledge of that institution and his relationships allowed him to get more socially beneficial legislation passed than did FDR.

He also had the presence to lead, not only the country, but also his party. Richardson doesn't project that authority.

Now things were different in the 60s, but it was also a time when we needed a leader and needed a lot of really bad things undone.

Hillary (and I speak of her by first name only because it is the branding set by her campaign and to avoid confusion with Bill) has the leadership power, but she won't be able to sway Congress. To make change, Democrats will need support from moderate Republicans who dislike what the neocons have done and also seek change. If those changes come from Hillary, they'll have no choice but to reject them to avoid alienating their base.

Edwards has presence and experience and maybe, just maybe, the ability to bring Congress in behind him.

Richardson may be a decent guy, but he's not the guy we need now.

[Catherine]

Oh, now, we're back to disagreeing again. Why couldn't you just let well enough alone, Jim?

Edwards is dasher, handsome and certainly well-coiffed, but I'm not going to give him "presence." He has the charisma, to me anyway, of flan.

Of the many different kinds of experience one needs (sorry, Obama), I think the critical one right now is international diplomacy. Only Richardson's got that. He may have it, indeed, for all the same reasons you're claiming that he's not Presidential... he doesn't come across as a politician's politician. For me, that's a plus. That said, I haven't backed a winning candidate in years.

I suspect, though, that despite our thoughtful conversation to the contrary, we're going to be pushed into a Clinton candidacy in the same way that Nicholas Cage films make money even though they're awful. It'll just seem like what's supposed to happen, whether or not it's the right thing. I hope whoever it is who's standing after the primaries has the good sense to consider Richardson for VP. I'll take an Edwards Richardson ticket, for example.

[Jim Grinstead]

"I suspect, though, that despite our thoughtful conversation to the contrary, we're going to be pushed into a Clinton candidacy in the same way that Nicholas Cage films make money even though they're awful. It'll just seem like what's supposed to happen, whether or not it's the right thing."

Amen, sister