Policy and Process
By Paul Silver | Related entries in General Politics, News, Partisan HacksI notice that many of us define a politician by their stand on specific issues. I tend to focus more on their temperament.
Are they purists?
Do they reveal their appreciation for the complexity of issues?
Are they willing and able to respect the opposing points of view?
Do they have the talent, skill and patience to engage with others to build on shared values.
Are they the kind of person others would turn to to help resolve a dispute?
For every champion of protecting the environment there are champions of private ownership rights.
For every champion of a woman’s right to choose is a champion of an embryo’s right to life.
For every terrorist there are people who honor them as freedom fighters.
For every criminal there is poor parenting, abuse and a tragic combination of circumstances.
For every person who wants cheaper health care there is someone who makes their living from health care.
Resolving these kinds of issues requires political leaders who can respect the stakeholders and find balance.
That is why I am supporting Lieberman and other Centrists.
From Paul Silver at the Austin Centrist
This entry was posted on Sunday, August 13th, 2006 and is filed under General Politics, News, Partisan Hacks. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 13th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
I’m tired of people calling Lieberman a centrist. Sure he is a centrist if you just add up all his specific issues, but he completely fails in the questions you say you look for. If he were truly a centrist, he would be over at the White House getting them to accept that the majority of the country is against the war, the Iraqis themselves think they are in a civil war, and instead of painting such positions as the fringe minority they should actively embrace them and try to persuade a change. He should realize that he is now free from political burden (if even temporarily) and use that freedom to speak the truth. If he were truly a centrist he would have accepted his defeat with grace and said “You know, I respect the democratic process. I think I still fit in with my party on most issues, but they are wrong on the War. I will now spend my time trying to persuade them otherwise while creating a better dialogue between the White House and Congress and Military in a way that only a non-politican could.” He would convince the White House to admit that they have made terrible strategic mistakes and lay out a plan with specifics on how strategically they expect to prevent the disinnegration of Iraq not only militarily, but civicly and politically as well. The war has lost the American people who believe we won’t win, the Iraqis who have lost hope anything will change, and the military who is getting hung out to dry. Saying in generalities that voting against him will cause the downfall of the Democratic party and using Rovian rhetoric won’t change anything on the ground, and he should realize that sometimes the best way to effect change is to not have any direct power, so you are totally free to put things together without any fear of reprisal. Even if he does win, he’ll just be one vote out of one hundred and a pariah to both sides for not helping advance their agenda, which is far less influential than he (suppossedly) has.