I know it’s behind an annoying pay wall, but David Brooks brings up one of my favorite topics in his column today: a third party. It’s not one of my favorites because I think we need one necessarily; it’s because I’m yet to hear a coherent explanation of what this party is going to believe and stand for.
In April, we had the “purple party,” which apparently be Clintonian Democrats in everything but name. In June, we learned about “Unity08,” which turned out to be long on rhetoric, short on specifics, and more pie-in-the-sky than substance.
Brooks, meanwhile, believes there’s already a third major party: the McCain-Lieberman Party. Let’s take a look at the MLP’s agenda on the two big areas of interest: foreign policy and budgetary policy.
On foreign policy, [the McCain-Lieberman Party] agrees with Tony Blair (who could not win a Democratic primary in the U.S. today): The civilized world faces an arc of Islamic extremism that was not caused by American overreaction, and that will only get stronger if America withdraws.
Oddly enough, this is characterized by Brooks as some kind of middle ground. I have no idea why. McCain is solidly on the right edge of the GOP on foreign policy, and as it turns out, so is Lieberman. As Matt Yglesias put it, “The only way you can get McCain-Lieberman as representing a ‘center’ position on foreign policy is if you define the extreme conceptual right-wing pole as ‘whatever George W. Bush happens to think,’ making any criticism of his policies a move to the left.”
And there’s the budget.
On fiscal policy, the McCain-Lieberman Party sees a Republican Party that will not raise taxes and a Democratic Party that will not cut benefits, and understands that to avoid bankruptcy the country must do both.
I suppose there’s a hint of middle-of-the-roadism in there — raise taxes, cut services — but it’s an awfully convenient one for the GOP. Those who rely on government services most have gotten nothing but a raw deal from the federal government over the last six years, while the wealthy have been lavished with multiple rounds of tax cuts the country can’t afford. After this extended period of “compassion,” Brooks thinks it’s time to cut services more and call it “moderation.” Typical.
On a similar note, as Jonathan Chait noted, it’s particularly odd for Brooks to argue that take hikes and spending cuts are necessary since he’s never said a word while “Republicans have relentlessly moved in the opposite direction.”
I vaguely understand Brooks’ overall point, I think. He sees Lieberman as being to the right of the Democratic mainstream, and McCain to the left of the GOP mainstream. Put ’em together, and you have a nice centrist party that’ll stay in Iraq, privatize public schools, and promote free trade.
But this is the same mistake mainstream pundits have been making for far too long. Lieberman’s biggest problem isn’t a Zell Miller-like voting record; it’s his propensity for going on Fox News to undermine the Dems and enabling right-wing talking points. McCain, on the other hand, simply isn’t a moderate; he’s a conservative Republican who’ll occasionally talk a good game. Aside from maybe acknowledging the reality of global warming, Brooks’ column didn’t mention a single issue in which McCain is anything but a mainstream Republican.
And then there’s Brooks’ underlying message: that a unity party is an inherent good. Atrios took this on nicely:
One really has to wonder about the people who keep advocating a “unity” presidential ticket. Aside from the generally absurd notions of what a supermajority supported political center really is, it’s an obscenely authoritarian elitist notion. What’s “unity?” It’s what we say it is! Disagree? You’re harshing our unity man! Shouldn’t voters actually have a choice and a healthy public debate about the direction of our country? Hell no!
Fall in line people, get on the unity train. Don’t you dare try to add any divisiveness or disagreement. We’re all just trying to get along!
We know what’s best. And that Saint McCain is such a likeable guy. No need to concern yourselves about what he might do.
Sounds to me like yet another third-party idea falls apart after a couple of minutes of scrutiny.
