Can center continue to hold?
Conservative radio personality James Dobson called the compromise on judicial nominations “a complete bailout and betrayal.” Nan Aron, head of the liberal group Alliance for Justice, said she was “very disappointed” and added, “Is there anybody on our side who is happy?”
If these two folks are so upset, then it must be a pretty good deal. Both sides got something; both sides gave something up. Conservatives win approval of three judges who have been blocked for years. Liberals preserve the right to filibuster future Supreme Court nominees.
That’s the way the legislative process should work: Lawmakers from across the aisle talking to each other, trading with each other, trusting in each other.
But as the reactions of Dobson and Aron indicate, radical pressure groups of all stripes have absolutely no interest in this process of seeking common ground. They’re only interested in pursuing politics as holy war — as an all-or-nothing, take-no-prisoners showdown.
Interest groups have an important role to play, but as gadflies rather than power brokers. When Dobson calls an honorable bargain a “betrayal,” he reveals an essential problem with modern American politics. The whole concept of compromise, one of the noblest words in the political lexicon, has been defiled by ideologues who profess to guard what Rep. Tom DeLay, the Republican leader, likes to call “absolute truth.”
These groups are undoubtedly motivated by sincere beliefs, but they also act out of self-interest. People give money when they are angry, and organizations on both sides of the judgeship battle have been generating huge contributions by stirring up overheated emotions. As Sen. John McCain cracked after the compromise was revealed, “Think of all the money they are going to lose.”
To be candid, we in the media are part of the problem. We tend to give our microphones to the loudest, shrillest voices around. We think these high-decibel shouting matches make “good television,” but “good television” is not the same as good information. And by spotlighting radicalism instead of reasonableness, we aggravate the toxic polarization that already pollutes the capital.
Then there’s the blogosphere. The emergence of new and diverse voices is very healthy, but the way to get noticed in cyberspace is to be outrageous. And many bloggers mirrored the reaction of the interest groups, competing with each other to denounce the compromise as a sellout.
John Hindrocket, writing on the right-wing blog Power Line, said, “To me it looks like a pathetic collapse on the part of the Republicans.” The blog TalkLeft was equally critical: “We have a total Republican regime. Welcome to the Theocracy.”
That is why it was so heartening to see seven senators from each party withstand these pressures and assert the virtues of conciliation. One of the most courageous, Republican Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, admitted that some of his supporters “will be very upset with me for awhile.” But he decided that the country could not afford the course that Republican leaders were taking — ending the judicial filibuster and triggering a Democrat counterattack that would have paralyzed the Senate.
The future is unclear. Republican Susan Collins said this agreement could serve as a “model” for further bipartisan cooperation, and we hope she’s right. The agreement urged President Bush to consult with Congress about future judicial selections, and he should take that advice.
But the interest groups have not disarmed, nor has the blogosphere disbanded. When a Supreme Court opening occurs, the pressures on the forces of goodwill and good sense will grow greater than ever. Then the question will be: Can the center continue to hold?
Steve and Cokie Roberts can be contacted by e-mail at stevecokie@gmail.com.