Nici Clinton, nici Obama

Atunci cine?

Editorialul este semnat de catre David Brooks, care este apropiat de pozitiile republicane.

Intrebarea lui se refera insa la cine va fi pana la urma candidatul democratilor. Si el scoate la iveala un nou nume: Bill Richardson, guvernator al statului New Mexico (dupa ce a fost ambasador la ONU, trimis special in Coreea de Nord, in Cuba si in Sudan, ministru al Energiei, toate astea in timpul Administratiei Clinton - iar peste tot a fost omul care sfinteste locul).

Hillary ar fi prima femeie devenita presedinta. Obama ar fi primul negru devenit presedinte. Se pare ca ne mai lipsea ceva - golul este acum acoperit de Bill Richardson, care ar fi primul hispanic devenit presedinte'.

Bun, Obama nu e chiar negru, negrii il suspecteaza ca ar fi chiar alb, oricum, nu este un negru care sa fi mancat salam cu soia.

Si despre Hillary se spune ca este foarte barbatoasa, ma rog, nu insist.

Ei bine, si in cazul lui Richardson, numai mama e hispanica. Omul stie la fel de bine si engleza, si spaniola.

Nu e de mirare ca republicanul David Brooks il admira pe Richardson. Pentru ca Brooks este mai curand libertarian, este in cercul celor dela CATO Institute - este deci un conservator preocupat de probleme economice - este impotriva impozitelor mari, este impotricva unui control prea strans al guvernului federal, intelege fenomenele globalizarii si asa ma departe. Este deci departe de social-conservatorii gen dr. Dobbson, care sunt preocupati in primul rand de aspectele mroale si religioase.

In Romania, o gandire ca aceea prizata de CATO Institute s-ar numi liberala. In America, ea se numeste conservatoare. Termenul de liberal este rezervat mai degraba stangii.

Bun, deci Brooks este un republican - libertarian - asa ca este firesc ca de la democrati sa ii placa exponentul centrului - care are de fapt cam aceleasi orientari ca si CATO. Pacat ca nu aveti la indemana cartile lui Andrei Cherny si Keneth Baer, ca sa le comparati de exemplu cu cartile lui Andrew Sullivan - cred insa ca va puteti face o idee si in lipsa acestora, daca urmariti cateva site-uri web:

- site-ul revistei Democracy -A Journal for Ideas, editata de Cherny si Baer - exprima punctul de vedere al centrului democratic (ei se autodenumesc progressives) -sunt destul de suspecti in ochii stangii democrate - Clinton este considerat a fi exprimat ideile lor in politica sa economica - vezi reforma welfare-ului facuta de el si bugetul echilibrat din 1996

- site-ul lui CATO Institute - considerat fi zona in care se intalnesc republicanii si libertarienii - in Romania l-am denumi ultraliberal - aici in America, asa cum spusei, ultraliberal ar fi sinonim cu trotzkist

- blogul lui Andrew Sullivan - este libertarianul tipic, admirator neconditionat al filosofiei politice a lui Margie Thacher si Ronny Reagan - vreau sa ajung sa ii comentez cartea lui, The conservative soul - How we lostit - How to get it back - imi este teama sa nu sochez, tipul avand pozitii foarte neortodoxe intr-o serie de chestiuni de morala - pot sa va spun doar ca argumentele lui in favoarea avorturilor, in favoarea homosexualilor, in favoarea stem cell research, mi s-au parut cele mai inteligente argumente pe care le-am citit - nu sunt argumentele unui Cameron sau ale unui Simcha - sunt argumentele unui conservator hranit cu lecturi serioase din Montaigne, Lessing, Nietzsche - insa maestrul lui este fara indoiala Montaigne).

Sa ma intorc insa la editorialul lui Brooks, publicat azi in New York Times. Il copiez aici integral, pentru ca sectiunea in care apare nu e disponibila decat abonatilor:

March 4, 2007

Op-Ed Columnist

Neither Clinton, Nor Obama

By DAVID BROOKS

So there I was, sitting in my office, quietly contemplating suicide. I was watching a cattle call of Democratic presidential candidates on C-Span. In their five-minute speeches, they were laying it on thick with poll-tested, consultant-driven clichés of the Our Children Are Our Future variety. The thought of having to spend the next two years listening to this drivel set me wondering if it was literally possible to be bored to death.

Then Bill Richardson walked onstage. He was dressed differently — in slacks and a sports jacket. He told jokes that didn't seem repeated for the 5,000th time. He seemed recognizably human, unlike some ofhis overpolished peers. He gave the best presentation, by far.

Then a heretical question entered my head: What if Richardson does this well at forums for the next 10 months? Is it possible to imagine him as a leading candidate for the nomination?

When you think that way, it becomes absurdly easy to picture him rising toward the top. He is, after all, the most experienced person running for president. He served in Congress for 14 years. He was the energy secretary (energy's kind of vital).

He's a successful two-term governor who was re-elected with 69 percent of the vote in New Mexico, a red state. Moreover, he's a governor with foreign policy experience. He was U.N. ambassador. He worked in the State Department. He's made a second career of negotiating on special assignments with dictators like Saddam, Castro and Kim Jong Il. He negotiated a truce in Sudan.

Most of all, he's not a senator. Since 1961, 40 senators have run forpresident and their record is 0-40. A senator may win this year, but you'd be foolish to assume it.

When it comes to policy positions, he's perfectly positioned — not by accident — to carry liberals and independents. As governor, he's covered the normal Democratic bases: he raised teacher pay, he expanded children's health insurance, he began programs to stall global warming, he built a light rail line.

But he also cut New Mexico's top income tax rate from 8.2 percent to 4.9 percent. He handed out tax credits to stimulate economic growth. (He's the only Democrat completely invulnerable on the tax cut issue.) He supports free trade, with reservations. And he not only balanced the budget — he also ran a surplus.

On cultural issues, Richardson has the distinct advantage of not setting off any culture war vibes. He was in college in the late1960s, but he was listening to the Beach Boys, not Janis Joplin. He was playing baseball in the Cape Cod League, not going to Woodstock. He idolized Humphrey, not McCarthy.

Richardson is actually something of a throwback pol — a Daley or La Guardia who doesn't treat politics as a moral crusade. That might appeal this year.On the nuts and bolts of the campaign, he has some advantages as well. He won't have the $150 million war chests that Clinton and Obama will have. On the other hand, he won't have the gigantic apparatuses that fund-raising on that scale requires. While those campaigns may be bloated, overmanaged and remote, Richardson has the potential to be small and nimble.

Furthermore, he could generate waves of free media the way JohnMcCain did in 2000. He's a reporters' favorite — candid, accessible and fun to be around. "I'm a real person, not canned. I don't have a whole bunch of advisers. I'm a little overweight, though I'm trying to dress better," he told me last week. So far, rumors of personal peccadilloes are unfounded. Finally, there is the matter of his personal style. This is his biggest drawback. He's baggy-faced, sloppy (we like our leaders well groomed), shamelessly ambitious and inelegant. On the other hand, once a century or so the Democratic Party actually nominates somebody the average person would like to have a beer with. Bill Richardson is that kind of guy.He is garrulous, amusing, touchy-feely (to a fault), a little rough-edged and comfortably mass-market. He's Budweiser, not microbrew. It doesn't hurt that he's Hispanic and Western. In short, when you try to think forward to next winter, you see that this campaign will at some point leave the "American Idol"/"Celebrity Deathmatch" phase. The Clinton-Obama psychodrama may cease to fascinate while the sheer intensity of coverage will create a topsy-turvy series of revolutions.

I wouldn't bet a paycheck on Richardson. But I wouldn't count him out. At the moment, he's the candidate most likely to rise.