Walkin’ the Walk
14 March 2008
–by Mike Murray
Howard Metzenbaum is dead. In more ways than one. The former United States Senator from Ohio was something rare and special in the realm of politics: a person who did more than “talk the talk.” A lot more.
Metzenbaum was an unabashed liberal. He leaned left. Way left. And he was quick to tell you so. When presidential hopeful Ronald Reagan made being a “card-carrying member of the ACLU” a pejorative, Metzenbaum was unfazed. Unlike many Democrats of that era (who were cowed by the swing of the political pendulum to the right), Metzenbaum stood tall.
I don’t know for sure that the good senator was in fact a member of the ACLU (though that seems probable). But figuratively speaking, he’d have been damn proud to present his membership card to anyone who asked to see it. Other Democrats of the period were left stammering like an underage teenager, attempting to purchase liquor at a convenience store: “Gee, I must have left my wallet [and my ID card] at home.”
Not Howard. He was proud to be called liberal. Not “progressive,” mind you – or any other such euphemistic dodge. Liberal. With a capital “L.”
Much more important than the courage Metzenbaum’s displayed in swimming against the political tide, however, was his commitment to moving beyond rhetoric. Unlike so many grandstanding pretenders, who are terrific at giving speeches and primping for cameras, Metzenbaum took action. He fought to implement legislative change that he believed necessary, and he worked just as hard to block measures that he believed harmful.
Whenever Metzenbaum appeared on a ballot, I voted for him. I didn’t always agree with his positions (he was decidedly more liberal than I). But I never doubted his motives; I never questioned his integrity. I admired him for his tireless efforts to help the downtrodden. He was genuine. He was a populist in much more than name. He was the very definition of a humanitarian.
How ironic that his mirror image – William Buckley, Jr. – also recently passed away. Buckley (as staunch a conservative as Metzenbaum was a liberal), similarly commanded respect from his ideological opponents. He, too, was sincere. He was a man of deep conviction. Moreover, he was unfailingly gracious to those with whom he disagreed. He was a thoroughly decent man.
Although not a politician by trade, Buckley nevertheless influenced public events. He altered the political landscape. Many believe he saved the Republican party by forcing it to change. Had there been no Buckley, there probably would have been no President Reagan.
Buckley shook things up. Starting with his first, landmark book (God and Man at Yale), he demonstrated an eloquent ability to “speak truth to power.” Just as Metzenbaum boldly bucked a conservative trend, Buckley brazenly took on the liberal establishment at Yale University.
From there, Buckley founded National Review magazine. The rest is history: His famed Firing Line television show, countless columns, memorable debates with Gore Vidal (among others), dozens of books.
Metzenbaum and Buckley each profoundly impacted their parties and their country. They did so because they were forceful. More than that, they were principled. They were driven to “do the right thing,” as each perceived it. Political expediency was never a consideration for either person. Both were willing to lose on occasion rather than sell out. They stood for things – and they fought for them. Those men were giants.
The late Meg Greenfield of the Washington Post surely must have approved of both. I recall several essays in which she prodded candidates (usually presidential hopefuls) to be honest with voters. Just tell us what you believe, not what you think we want to hear, she demanded. Although herself a liberal, she admired people like Reagan for shooting straight.
If Greenfield was disappointed with past politicians, what would she think of the current crop? Not much, I’m guessing.
I’ve moved politically back and forth throughout my adult life, sometimes a little to the left, other times a tad to the right – never straying too far from the center. When I was a lefty, I bought into the “caring / sharing” mantra. You know: peace, love, tolerance, inclusion… your basic Kumbaya stuff.
But I was disillusioned to find that, too often, talk from politicians was just that. Talk. For sure, Democrats said all the right things. But the actions of many among them didn’t live up to their platitudes.
Take the present situation. Hillary Clinton’s campaign tactics make many cringe. Under the guise of “Gee, look at what the Republicans would say,” her camp has slung some awful mud at Barack Obama. They’ve alluded to his unsavory associations. They’ve whispered about his previous drug use (even hinting at a potential “pusher” past). They’ve carped about his ties to a discredited developer.
But those moves aren’t all that unusual in the rough-and-tumble world of campaigning. What really disturbs are other things. Things like Hillary telling a national audience during a televised debate that she believes it an “honor” to share a stage with Obama – only to shamelessly trash him the next day during a campaign stop.
Worse are the attempts of Clinton and her surrogates to inflame racial tensions. When they say that Obama needs to “man up,” they cross a dangerous line. (By the way, how would Hillary react if Obama’s campaign responded in kind with a gender slur, by suggesting that she should stop trying to act “so butch?” Not favorably, I bet.)
But the Clintonistas do more than question Obama’s masculinity when they contend that he needs to “man up.” They insult his race. Because if they don’t consider Obama to be fully a man, what do they think him? A “boy?” There is no greater insult to a black man.
I can’t believe the Clintons are unaware of that fact. It makes one wonder: Are they trying to start a race war among Democrats? There are nationally more non-black Democrats (whites, Latinos, Asians, etc.) than there are black ones; disgusting as it is, dividing by race is a strategy that could work. Look at Mississippi: Obama got nearly all of the black vote; Clinton most of the white.
The state of race relations within their party seems decidedly less important to members of the Clinton crowd than does winning the presidential nomination. And that is sad. So much for diversity. So much for inclusion. So much for peace, love, and harmony. So much for Kumbaya.
Obama and his team have publicly sought to unite, not divide. His message of hope includes an expressed desire to bridge differences, to bring together diverse groups of people. Black, white, yellow, brown, and red. Democrat, Republican, and independent. Rural and urban. Young and old. All of us, he says, can get along.
It is a compelling message. The achievement of common ground – and common good – appeals to most people. How could it not? All but the cold-hearted hanker for such cooperation.
But is Obama sincere? Those who oppose Obama urge a thorough examination of his record. We will find, they, say, a thin history of accomplishment. They point to his lack of experience. That’s fine. Voters should consider every candidate’s level of preparation and degree of competence.
More important to me, however, is the extent to which Obama’s “walk” matches his “talk.” Is he truly a person who brings people together? Is he someone who has demonstrated a willingness to “cross the aisle?”
So far, I see little evidence of that. He is currently ranked as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. His voting record is tilted all the way in one direction. That doesn’t suggest compromise. Neither does it suggest a willingness to work with the “other side,” nor to bring diverse groups together.
Also consider that when the “gang of 14” senators (which included John McCain) formed for the purpose of breaking the logjam on judicial appointments, Obama declined to join. Democrats and Republicans in that instance came together to seek solutions. Obama, however, passed on the opportunity. If he acted that way then, why should voters believe him now – when he says he’d unite disparate groups as president?
Obama’s rhetoric is fine. He says things like: “The enemy is not the other party. The enemy is cynicism.” But which speak louder: his words or his actions?
McCain has his own problems. A staunch conservative for most of his political career, he has in recent years moderated. That’s fine by me. I applauded him when he broke with extremists within his own party over proposed immigration legislation. His initial stance on how best to balance concerns over legality and security was a humane one.
Equally important to people like me was McCain’s willingness to do what he believed was right, regardless of the political cost. And it did cost him. Conservatives were livid. Talk radio was abuzz. Angry citizens, jacked up by talk-show hosts, flooded Capitol Hill with telephone calls, faxes, and e-mail messages. Congress caved, and nothing was accomplished. The matter was quietly tabled. Still, McCain had acted honorably.
But later, while campaigning for his party’s presidential nomination, McCain shifted gears. In an attempt to placate Republican malcontents, he adopted a much tougher position on immigration. In the end, the “maverick” conformed.
Obama, McCain, and Clinton all have qualities that recommend them. But the demonstrated tendency of each to opt for expediency troubles many. Bowing to pressure from the left, Clinton has radically changed her position on the Iraq War. And she has conducted her campaign in a way that could do lasting harm to her party – and to her country. Obama talks a good, inspirational game. But he has so far evidenced little willingness to follow through. McCain has demonstrated that his vaunted independence is sometimes vulnerable to political pressure.
Absent the late emergence of a strong alternative candidate, one of those three hopefuls will wind up being our next president. I can’t help but wonder what Metzenbaum and Buckley would have made of that. They, too, at times compromised. But never their principles.
Copyright © 2008 Michael F. Murray All rights reserved.
