digamma.net - notes

Matt Yglesias nails the problem with Clintonian triangulation:

An egregious pander here-or-there on some symbolic culture war issue is a perfectly reasonable political strategy for an ambitious figure to implement, and while liberals ought to complain a little (it doesn’t actually work as a strategy unless someone whines about it), it’s not the biggest deal in the world. But all this repositioning is in pursuit of . . . what, exactly?

The goal ought to be some sort of grand bargain where you tilt right on some stuff but also promise some substantial liberal advances. If Senator Clinton is just so hobbled by her high negatives that she needs to cut a political profile that consists of nothing but efforts to reach out to the center, then who needs her? A would-be Democratic president ought to be associated with some big progressive cause, but the only time you see Clinton in the news is for some dash to the right.

Yglesias is talking about Mrs. Clinton, but that was my problem with Mr. Clinton throughout the 1990’s. When I wore my Nader buttons in 1996 and 2000, Democrats would explain to me that Clinton HAD to execute the retarded kid, double the prison population, slash welfare to bits, and censor the Internet - because otherwise he couldn’t get elected!

But, if you’re not a blind partisan, getting elected isn’t an end - it’s the means to an end. That end is good policy. When you triangulate, you need to think hard about whether the ends justify the means.