Yesterday I got to attend a short lunch presentation given by Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut. While the portion of his remarks that I heard sounded very much like the beginnings of a stump speech, it was gratifying to see someone so centrally positioned in the Washington debate who was both focused on and frustrated by the politics of division that are setting the agenda these days. It was clear he understood the damage being done to our national consensus, and I believe that given the chance he would work to reverse it.
However, as I was listening to Dodd's analysis of the upcoming mid-term election (and Congresswoman Eshoo's follow-up comments) I kept thinking about the new book "The Way to Win" by Mark Halperin and John Harris, two well respected political observers in the mainstream media. In the book they divide modern American politics into two separate strategies: the Clinton approach, which blurs the distinctions between the parties to build a governing coalition in the middle, and the Bush/Rove strategy, which activates the base by highlighting the differences between the parties. The first strategy annoys the extremes and satisfies the moderates, and the latter strategy satisfies the extremes (well, at least one extreme) and agitates the moderates.
The matter-of-fact, Machiavellian tone of Halperin and Harris can grate after a while. Such objectivity may be the hallmark of good journalism, but for people genuinely concerned about the fate of the country it's easy to interpret their clinical analysis as cold indifference. It seems that for those in the center of the political battle the questions surrounding political tactics are fundamentally strategic. It's not about right and wrong, per se, it's about winning. The reason why Rove has architected this divisive, aggressive atmosphere is a) because he can, and b) because he perceives it to be an effective way to win. Whether or not such a strategy is moral or immoral is immaterial.
Those of us on the outside of the political discussion often analyze these decisions in emotional or ethical terms, ascribing malevolent intentions to those who make them. In fact, it seems more accurate to say that the agents of action in choosing these strategies don't spend much (if any) time thinking in those terms. Perhaps we will do better at understanding why such strategies are chosen, and how to ensure that different choices are made, once we have a clearer understanding of the way the agents of action (the political strategists inside the beltway) view themselves.