Matthew Miller announced yesterday that he won’t write his syndicated newspaper column any more, "at least for some time."
This so-called liberal has been arguing (forever, it seems) that what the nation needs lies midway between the liberal and conservative positions, that the parties are organized to block "common sense solutions" and - in this last piece – that the nation needs a third party in the middle.
That is balderdash, but before I deal with it, consider Dan Balz’s Sunday story in the Washington Post headlined:
"Democrats' Grass Roots Shift the Power
Activists Energized Fundraising, but Some Worry They Could Push Party to Left"
Here is the gist:
"As Dean takes the helm as party chairman, Democrats now face a competition between what might be called the Dean model and the Clinton model, between confrontation and triangulation. This amounts to a contest between a bold reassertion of the party's traditional philosophy that fits the polarized environment of the Bush presidency vs. a less provocative effort to balance core values with centrist ideas that proved successful in the 1990s but has since produced a backlash within the party."
Who deals in reality, Miller or Balz?
Balz, of course.
Miller - the innocent rationalist - talks about ideas, not power. He contrasts liberal vs. conservative as if they are real, not labels. As if the GOP is conservative and the Democrats liberal. And he’s managed to blind himself to the fact that GOP conservatives are almost powerless in their party, Democratic liberals likewise. Further, he conceives of the political spectrum as if it is fixed; meaning that the nation’s move to the Right has escaped him.
Finally, Miller forgets to count the votes. There is no traction for his middle-of-the-road solutions because the White House – having governed, run and been reelected on a Far Right platform - has little need to compromise with GOP conservatives and none whatsoever to be nice to Democratic "liberals."
[In Balz’s story, Eli Pariser, who runs the MoveOn political action committee, says approximately that, in his terms:
"I think it's pretty clear that the era of triangulation is over," he said. "The reason for that is that if you step halfway between Republicans and Democrats, you get your head cut off by Republicans. There's no compromise and no mercy, so I think it's pretty clear that Democrats need to be an opposition…"]
Balz is reporting the nitty-gritty. Sen. Clinton and Governor Richardson dance the triangulation waltz daily. The grassroots’ choice of Howard Dean as party chairman reflects the power of the other side.
Admittedly, Balz’s picture is a snapshot. The Democrats’ debate may take on different colors next month. Maybe there’s a synthesis between the "triangulators" and the "opposition."
Meanwhile, Miller thinks rationality will carry the day. To plumb the depths of his silliness, read the New York Times story on what George W. Bush told a friend (who recorded the comments) as Bush was contemplating going after the White House.
Those taped comments on people and tactics, plus the record of his administration and two presidential campaigns, remind us that belief - Bush’s certainties, that is – is what wins power, not rationality.
PS On considering the tapes, the press finds most newsworthy the question of whether Bush smoked pot! Even NPR! How discouraging.
PPS The Albuquerque Journal used Miller often as a "liberal" Op Ed voice. I wonder how they will fill that space, with somebody bold or namby-pamby.
PPPS Dan Balz's story is a reminder that journalism can be useful.