The G-Faux-P
by Cody Keenan on November 14, 2007 in Opinion
Somewhere, John Kerry sits, frustrated he ran four years too early. Appearing to be on both sides of the issues did him in during the last election. This time around, it’s in vogue.
When asked about an Iraq spending bill in 2004, Kerry said he “voted for it before [he] voted against it,” and the campaign was over. It was an inarticulate truth: they were two separate votes on two separate bills – and Republicans voted against it before they voted for it.
Unfortunately for Kerry, voters don’t care about arcane Senate rules. And suddenly, hecklers waving flip-flop sandals dogged him at every campaign stop. He was no longer seen as a candidate of conviction, but a candidate of convenience. This time around, flip-flopping is standard among Republicans.
But unlike Kerry, a man who stumbled over an explanation, these men have fundamentally changed their positions when politically expedient. Candidates who once ran as moderate – even liberal – are now racing to see who can outconservative one another and be first to appoint a Supreme Court that will ban abortion, homosexuality, sex, diplomacy and the 1960s. And some even dive into outright hypocrisy in the pursuit of power. In 1994, Mitt Romney tried to pull off the impossible: run as a Republican against a Democratic icon in liberal Massachusetts.
The 1994 Romney, taking on Ted Kennedy, was pro-gay rights and pro-abortion rights. “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country,” he told voters. Years later, Governor Romney promised to “preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose.”
The 2007 Romney? “I am firmly pro-life.”
The 1994 Romney didn’t want to scare the voters. “Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan/Bush.”
The 2007 Romney? “We’ll have to bring together the same coalition that Ronald Reagan put together. All of us here are Republicans…the question is, who will be able to build the house that Ronald Reagan built?”
Then there’s good ol’ Fred Thompson, who worked as a lobbyist on behalf of pro-choice groups in the early 1990s, but can’t remember if he did or not, and even if he did, he’s pro-life today anyway. And then there’s the leader of the Republican pack, Rudy Giuliani.
The 1990s Giuliani supported gay rights, registration of all handguns, the assault weapons ban, tripling funding for health coverage for sick children, public funding for abortions and the New York Yankees.
The 2007 Giuliani supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, woos the NRA, encourages President Bush’s veto of an insurance program for sick children and thinks overturning Roe v. Wade would be “OK.” Most unconscionable of all, he rooted for the Red Sox in the World Series.
But Rudy’s taken the art of saying one thing then doing another to a new level. In September, he seethed with righteous indignation over an advertisement the MoveOn.org ran prior to Congressional hearings featuring General David Petraeus with the headline “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”
He and other Republicans demanded apologies from Democratic presidential candidates for an ad they had nothing to do with. “It is time for Americans to really insist that American politicians move beyond character assassination,” Giuliani fumed.
I couldn’t agree more. Which is why I was especially disappointed when Giuliani engaged in character assassination just two weeks ago. After Barack Obama dared say he would talk with problematic world leaders, Giuliani pounced.
“[This is] not this happy, romantic-like world where we’ll negotiate with this one, or we’ll negotiate with that one and there will be no preconditions, and we’ll invite Ahmadinejad to the White House, we’ll invite Osama to the White House,” Giuliani mused. “Hillary and Obama are kind of debating whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball.”
This is the type of behavior people consider presidential? This is the type of leadership America demands and the world deserves?
These massive reversals are much more than merely talking out both sides of one’s mouth – they are about changing core values in an effort to gain power. They are about trading conviction for convenience.
It’s partially the fault of a primary system that encourages candidates to run to the right or left. Is the Republican nominee going to keep proclaiming these positions come next summer?
It’s partially the fault of a lazy media that enjoys stories of conflict. Why explore real challenges when they can run a good attack sound bite? Tolerating this type of politics can no longer be the fault of voters.
There’s an uneasy feeling in the country that the world isn’t exactly as it should be. There’s an anxiousness that our economic and foreign policy challenges are about to get worse. There’s a hunger for leadership unmatched in recent decades, and these tired tactics don’t satiate, they nauseate.
The tremendous tests of the coming years deserve candidates of conviction, not convenience. With so much at stake, let’s hope Americans demand them.
Written by Cody Keenan · Filed Under Opinion
Cody Keenan is a former Opinions Editor of the Citizen. Prior to his time at the Kennedy School of Government, Cody worked in the United States Senate from 2003 to 2006. He spent last summer on a leading presidential campaign.
A Chicagoan and graduate of Northwestern University, he blames his Midwestern roots for his affinity for meat products and perennially losing sports teams. In this space, he hopes to write columns on string theory, metaphysics, and behavioral economics, but will probably just stick to politics and American culture.
Comments
Got something to say?
